In this episode of Christ the Center, Camden Bucey speaks with Dr. David Noe, pastor of Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grand Rapids and former faculty member at Calvin University. They discuss Dr. Noe’s work at the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, focusing on his recent workshop and the enduring significance of classical studies for understanding the Reformed theological tradition.

Join us as we discuss the importance of Latin scholarship, the influence of classical authors on Reformation thought, and the challenges and rewards of engaging with historical theological texts. This conversation highlights the value of communal learning and the timeless relevance of studying foundational Christian doctrines in their original languages.

Dr. Noe is also the Latin editor for the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, and his online pedagogy for Latin, Greek, and Classics generally can be found at LatinPerDiem.com, MossMethod.com, and AdNavseam.com.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:03:13 Working with Other Scholars
• 00:11:12 A Recent Latin Workshop at the Meeter Center
• 00:20:08 Seeing Scholarship in Process
• 00:24:09 Imitating the Education of the Reformers
• 00:34:33 Day 1: Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius
• 00:41:48 Day 2: Augustine, Bernard of Clairveaux, Thomas Aquinas
• 00:49:01 Day 3: Lorenzo Valla, Guillaume Bude, and Erasmus
• 00:54:31 Day 4: Calvin
• 00:56:53 Day 5: Vermigli
• 00:59:21 Daily Disciplines
• 01:07:01 Latin Per Diem
• 01:12:22 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Noe

Camden Bucey provides a preview of our upcoming symposium scheduled for Saturday, May 18, 2024. In this event, we will explore pivotal moments and figures in the history of the Reformed tradition. This event will feature four presentations and related discussions on critical theological developments and historical events that have shaped the Protestant Church, particularly within the French-speaking world. Whether you are a scholar, student, or simply passionate about church history and theology, this symposium offers enriching insights into the enduring legacy and challenges of the Reformed tradition.

Sessions

• Dan Borvan: The Church Under the Cross: An Overview of the French Reformed Church
• David Noe: Theodore Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy (1561)
• Marty Klauber: The Eucharistic Theology of Jean Mestrezat
• Stephen Davis: The War of the Camisards (1702–1704): Huguenot Resistance Under Louis XIV

Visit https://www.reformedforum.org/francophone for more information.

We also include the first two lessons in Dr. Carlton Wynne’s new course on John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Books 1–2.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:02:29 Symposium on the Reformation in the Francophone World
• 00:06:57 Overview of the French Reformed Church
• 00:11:30 Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy
• 00:13:12 The Eucharistic Theology of Jean Mestrezat
• 00:15:12 The War of the Camisards (1702–1704)
• 00:18:09 Carlton Wynne’s Course on Calvin’s Institutes, Books 1-2
• 00:23:38 Introduction to Calvin’s Institutes
• 00:52:03 John Calvin the Man
• 01:26:01 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey

In this enlightening episode, we discuss the nuances of conscience and confessional identity during the Reformation. Joined by Dr. Timothy Scheuers, we turn our attention to the transformative period of the 16th century, exploring how conscience acted not only as a catalyst for reform but also as a complex element influencing church unity, confessional standards, and the intricate relationship between church and state.

The core of our discussion centers around Dr. Scheuer’s book, Consciences and the Reformation: Scruples over Oaths and Confessions in the Era of Calvin and His Contemporaries (Oxford University Press), providing a fresh perspective on the role of conscience in driving forward the Reformation’s agenda. We explore the pivotal moments and figures of this era, including Calvin’s return to Geneva and the establishment of the Geneva Academy, to understand how these historical milestones continue to influence contemporary Christian thought and practice.

Through a blend of historical examination and practical application, this episode not only sheds light on the foundational aspects of Reformed theology but also invites listeners to reflect on the relevance of these principles in today’s ecclesiastical landscape. Whether you’re a theologian, a pastor, or simply someone interested in Christian history and doctrine, this episode offers valuable insights into the enduring legacy of the Reformation and its significance for the contemporary church.

Rev. Scheuers is the Associate Pastor of First United Reformed Church of Chino, CA, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of History at Providence Christian College (Pasadena, CA).

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:05:49 Discovering the Topic
• 00:12:57 Conscience and the Reformation
• 00:18:59 Church-State Relations
• 00:24:47 Dissimulation and Conscience in the Reformation
• 00:31:57 The Role of Conscience in Calvin’s Geneva
• 00:49:44 Calvin’s Return to Geneva and Changes in Approach
• 00:59:58 The Effect of Sin on the Conscience
• 01:15:27 The Geneva Academy and Confessional Subscription
• 01:20:48 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Dan Ragusa, Tim Scheuers

After recording a course on the subject for Reformed Academy, Dr. Carlton Wynne comes to the podcast studio to discuss John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Topics covered include Calvin’s theology, the right ordering of knowledge, general and special revelation, the effects of the fall on human reasoning, natural theology, and comparisons to the thought of Thomas Aquinas and Cornelius Van Til. Carlton also shares about his experience as a pastor-theologian and his talk on maintaining true religion in a modernist world at the recent Reformation Worship Conference. The conversation touches on the legacy of J. Gresham Machen and the need for the church to guard the good deposit of faith.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:05:41 Introduction to Carlton’s Course on Calvin’s Institutes
• 00:13:56 The Church and the Academy
• 00:20:58 Approaching a Course on the Institutes
• 00:30:30 The Natural Knowledge of God
• 00:37:52 Natural Theology, Ethics, and “Formal” Truth
• 00:49:48 The Reformation Worship Conference
• 00:57:28 Machen 2.0
• 01:10:39 Calvin and the Threefold Office of Mediator
• 01:12:52 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Carlton Wynne

Sean Morris joins us to speak about the pastoral theology of John Knox. Known as the thunderous voice of the Scottish Reformation, Knox is a towering figure whose impact still reverberates within the walls of churches around the globe. This episode focuses on Knox’s profound commitment to conforming worship to Scripture, a principle that shaped not only the religious landscape of his own time but also the worship practices of numerous Protestant traditions today.

Knox’s time in Geneva led to a transformative moment in the history of the Scottish Reformation. He didn’t just carry back Calvin’s teachings to Scotland, he translated them into a national scale, bringing about the establishment of a new Protestant and Reformed Church of Scotland. Today, Knox is known as the “Father of Presbyterianism,” a title acknowledging his impact despite the strong influences he drew from Calvin.

However, this journey was not without its obstacles and disappointments, notably with the Scottish First Book of Discipline. Mr. Morris elaborates on several of Knox’s frustrations, particularly with the position of superintendents, and the eventual triumphs and compromises he had to navigate while reforming the Scottish Church.

We also consider Knox’s experience with the “worship wars” in Frankfurt, and how his commitment to the regulative principle of worship evolved. At its core, this principle is an application of sola scriptura to worship, seeking only to require in worship that which is commanded in Scripture. Knox’s conviction here, despite the challenges, deeply influenced the trajectory of Presbyterianism.

Mr. Morris sheds light on Knox’s pastoral theology, opening our eyes to the complexities of historical and current worship practices. Tune in as we navigate this exciting journey into the past, appreciating the influences that continue to shape the contemporary Christian landscape.

Sean Morris is Associate Minister of Covenant PCA in Oak Ridge, TN and
Academic Dean of BRITE (Blue Ridge Institute for Theological Education) in Roanoke, VA.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:03:07 PCA General Assembly Highlights
• 00:12:57 John Knox and Presbyterianism
• 00:21:26 Exclusive Psalmody and Psalm Tunes
• 00:25:06 John Knox’s Biography and Church Context
• 00:32:19 Knox and Calvin
• 00:36:40 Toward a Regulative Principle of Worship
• 00:46:25 Knox and the Lord’s Supper
• 00:52:26 The Pastoral Work of the Session
• 00:59:24 Suggested Reading
• 01:05:21 Presbygirl Paparazzi
• 01:10:15 Conclusion

Suggested Reading

• Jane Dawson, John Knox
• Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology
• Knox Film Documentary
• Donald MacLeod, Therefore the Truth I Speak: Scottish Theology 1500–1700
• The Works of John Knox, Banner of Truth
• The First Book of Discipline
• The Second Book of Discipline

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Sean Morris

Dr. Jonathan Master speaks about his book, Reformed Theology (P&R Publishing), which is part of the Blessings of the Faith series edited by Jason Helopoulos. Master provides a concise and accessible introduction to the historic and orthodox Christian tradition of Reformed theology. In this book, he emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the authority of Scripture, and the grace of salvation, while also demonstrating its biblical coherence and pastoral warmth. This resource is ideal for church leaders, study groups, and individuals who want a well-rounded overview of Reformed theology.

Jonathan Master is President of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary near Greenville, South Carolina.

Chapters

• 00:07 Introduction
• 04:14 Update on Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
• 11:57 Reformed Theology
• 14:48 What Does It Mean to be Reformed?
• 24:52 Dr. Master’s Path to Becoming Reformed
• 28:49 The Intended Audience of the Book
• 32:48 The Role of Covenant Theology
• 41:01 Creeds and Confessions
• 45:13 Reformed Theology and the Ministry of the Holy Spirit
• 49:54 The Reformed Motivation for Missions and Evangelism
• 54:03 Conclusion

Links

• Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
• Theology on the Go podcast
• The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
• Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative

Select Publications by Jonathan Master

• A Question of Consensus: The Doctrine of Assurance After the Westminster Confession (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015)
• The God We Worship, ed. (P&R Publications, 2016)
• On Reforming Worship, ed. with David Hall (Covenant Publications, 2018)
• Growing in Grace (Banner of Truth, 2020)

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jonathan Master

Where is Christ’s body now?

In short, that is the question behind our conversation today with K. J. Drake, the author of The Flesh of the Word: The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 2021). In this book, Drake seeks to broaden the study of the extra Calvinisticum by investigating how the doctrine arose within sixteenth-century Reformed theology as well as how its form and function developed over time due to the changing polemical and theological contexts from Zwingli to the period of early Reformed orthodoxy.

K. J. Drake is Academic Dean and Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Indianapolis Theological Seminary. He received his BA in History, Classics, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, and Latin from the University of Nebraska. He attended Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis where he received his M.Div.

Chapters

• 00:00:00 Introduction
• 00:05:41 The Question of Immanuel
• 00:07:43 Defining the Extra Calvinisticum
• 00:10:33 Development of Zwingli’s Views
• 00:15:40 Fault Lines between Lutheran and Reformed
• 00:18:35 Barth and the Extra Calvinisticum
• 00:20:47 Calvin vs. the Calvinists
• 00:24:38 Zwingli’s Christology
• 00:32:22 Development in Zwingli’s Views
• 00:35:11 The Consensus Tigurinus
• 00:39:43 Vermigli and the Communicatio Idiomatum
• 00:48:47 Knox and Cranmer
• 00:51:34 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu
• 00:54:50 Other Doctrines that Are Impacted
• 01:04:58 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Dan Ragusa, K. J. Drake

This the first installment of a quarterly series of interviews highlighting the Lord’s work in the lives and ministries of our Reformed Forum faculty. Up first is Jim Cassidy, president of the Reformed Forum board of directors and pastor of South Austin OPC in Austin, Texas. He sits down with Ryan Noha to discuss growing up Roman Catholic, giving up his life for the gospel, and serving the Lord in his family, church, and the work of Reformed Forum.

Jim, we have many longtime friends and supporters at Reformed Forum who know you well, but for those who are just meeting you for the first time or haven’t heard about your background, tell us how you made your way from Roman Catholicism into the OPC. How were you converted, and then how were you “born again” as one of Machen’s Warrior Children?

I appreciate that question. I think that growing up Roman Catholic has given me a particular perspective on the Reformation. When I was growing up Roman Catholic, the emphasis was very much upon the rules and doing what you’re supposed to do so that you don’t displease God. And if you don’t displease God, then you can get yourself out from underneath his wrath. So everything was geared towards this work of merit, whether it’s in the participation of the sacraments, going to church, not talking in church to your friends, kneeling properly, being an altar boy—you got some extra points for that. Now, they didn’t put it in those terms. But that’s sort of the message that was communicated.

As I was growing up and into college, I was under the impression that if you did enough good works, or if you did more good works than bad works, then you would go to either purgatory or heaven. But if you were a particularly nasty sort that did more bad deeds than good deeds, you would go to hell. Now, nobody I knew, despite the depravity that we exercised in our lives, thought that they were so bad as to be going to hell. And when they did something that was particularly bad, and they knew it, they would joke around and laugh and say, “Ha, I’m going to hell!” But it was not really taken seriously. I had this impression going into college.

It was there in college that I met a Baptist believer who was ministering to me and praying for me. His church’s youth group back home was also praying for me. And he was witnessing to me telling me about the gospel. When I told him my understanding of Christianity as I just explained it, he said, “No, that’s not how you get to heaven. You get into heaven by having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” And now, we know, and I know from hindsight, that that’s not itself the gospel: “Having a personal relationship with Jesus.” That’s more of an evangelical way of saying that it’s not on the basis of your works or your goodness that you get into heaven but by faith in Jesus Christ. And so I remember going to bed that evening and saying to Jesus that I wanted to have a relationship with him. I woke up the next day, and I began to read my Bible and basically haven’t looked back since.

Now at that time, I didn’t fully comprehend the gospel. I knew nothing of the Reformation. So my intent was to be a Catholic—a good Catholic—and to stay in the Catholic Church. My intent was to go around telling everybody that they need to have a “personal relationship with Jesus” because that’s what I was taught. At that point, a Reformed person who was part of a Protestant Bible study took me aside. He began to explain to me the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and he told me a little bit about the Reformation and “faith alone” and “grace alone” and all of that stuff. And when I went home over Christmas break during my sophomore year, I began to read Galatians. It blew my mind because Paul was articulating everything that I did not believe or that I was not taught growing up. In fact, it was the exact opposite of what I was being taught as I was growing up. It absolutely transformed and renovated my way of thinking about sin and salvation, the gospel—the whole nine yards. I quickly became very angry at the Catholic Church when I thought about the way that they were misleading me. My soul, and the souls of millions, was dependent upon the church proclaiming the truth and the true gospel, and Rome wasn’t doing that. It upset me very much.

I’ve gotten over my anger, but speaking to the issue of Machen’s Warrior Children, perhaps the reason that I am so dogmatically committed to Reformed theology is because I believe that it is as Warfield put it: “Christianity come to its own.” And if Reformed Christianity is “Christianity come to its own,” then we absolutely must stand for it; we must fight for it. Souls are at stake. I would never want our church to lose that message. I think Machen felt that way, too, even though he wasn’t raised Catholic. He was raised within the Presbyterian Church, but he was militant about the truth because he knew that it was a life-or-death situation. And I know it’s a life-or-death situation. So I believe in the Reformed faith and in zealously maintaining it, promoting it, preaching it, and teaching it because I believe truly that lives are at stake.

Amen, brother. I never tire of hearing how the Lord has brought a person to the understanding of that life-giving gospel: the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified, risen, ascended, and coming again. It’s only through union with him that we have any hope of salvation. It’s really that simple. We aren’t Reformed because we’re pugilistic, but because the Reformed faith is the only faith worth contending for. It’s radically consistent with Scripture, and that’s why we love it. That’s why we agree with Machen when he said on his deathbed, “Isn’t the Reformed faith grand?”

Yes. I think everybody has it within them to give their lives for something. We all know the brevity of our lives, and I think I think everybody wants to give their life to something that that counts, that makes a difference. Most of the time people identify the wrong thing to give their lives for. When I found and discovered the truth of the gospel as it was recaptured and re-articulated by the Reformers, I found something where I could say, I’m willing to die on that hill. I’m willing to surrender my life for the sake of that message because it has eternal consequences, even as the message itself is eternal as it says in the Book of Revelation, the “eternal gospel.” Without that understanding, we don’t have the gospel. We only have a man-made imitation of it as Paul says in Galatians, which is “no gospel at all.”

It’s really important for us to understand that we don’t want to be Machen’s Warrior Children, as it were, for the sake of making other people’s lives difficult. Or if we’re being just obnoxious, having a reputation for being that pugilistic guy who’s always looking to fight—we don’t want that. We don’t fight for the sake of the fight; we fight for the sake of the faith. We fight the good fight of faith. It’s important for us to keep our eyes on that because it’s that faith which will bring Christ’s children to maturity. And that’s part of what our goal is at Reformed Forum: to declare the whole counsel of God unto the people of God so that everyone in the church can be brought to the point of maturity in Christ, all to the glory of Christ, for the good of his church, and the evangelization of the lost. That’s something that we have to bear in mind.

We’re supporting the Great Commission of the church. We’re not the church; we’re not doing the Great Commission. Rather, we’re seeking to come alongside the church to support its mission to preach the gospel. And without understanding exactly what it is that the Scriptures teach about the gospel, we have nothing to offer the world. We have no evangel, no gospel to preach, unless we are clear, concise, and accurate in our proper reading of the Scriptures, aided by the Holy Spirit through the testimony of the church in the past and all the greats upon whose shoulders we stand. Without that, we don’t have a message that is worth living for. It’s not worth dying for. It doesn’t aid in the work of evangelism.

That’s right. Without that message, it’s not even evangelism at all. Now, on that note of discipleship, I’d love to hear how this all works out in your family life. Would you give us portrait of your family and then share a bit about how you seek to lead in such a way that the Lord would draw your wife and children into these glorious truths that we hold so dear?

My wife, Eve, is a great helpmeet to me. She has been there by my side in ministry for the last 20 years. I’m so very grateful. We’ve known each other longer than that, but we’ve been married in ministry for 20 years. We have three wonderful children, Caitlyn, Ian, and Anna, and they’re all great kids. I love them dearly. In terms of your question about discipleship, it’s a little bit different now because the kids are older. Eve has a job outside the home, and I have a job, of course. So we’re all going every which way, and our time together for regular, regimented family worship is not in the same pattern as it was when the kids were younger. We were very regimented. After our evening meal, we would have Bible reading, catechesis, and prayer. Now, my pastoral instinct to try to mitigate the awkward schedule of having older kids, one of whom is in college, is to take every opportunity to talk to them about the things of the Lord and to pray with them. I drive my daughter to school every day and we pray on the way to school; we talk about the things of the Lord and about the church. My kids are inquisitive, so they like to ask questions. I try to maximize those questions to illuminate the faith.

It’s much more dynamic, living as it is now in terms of ministry to the family, but I have to emphasize the importance of catechesis. My kids have a bedrock, a foundation, in the Catechism that they learned when they were younger. If I were to be honest and sober, I would say that they probably wouldn’t be able to recite word for word the vast majority of the Q and A’s that they learned as they were growing up, but the substance is there. And there are a few very key questions and answers that the kids still very much have burned or etched within their memories, such that it would go rote if I were to ask the question at random. Sometimes I’ll say, “What does every sin deserve?” in the course of conversation, and the kids instantly say, “the wrath and curse of God,” which is from the Children’s Catechism. There are some of those questions that are really familiar: Who made you? What’s your chief end? And however you might rephrase that question, they’ve got it; they know it. So it gives us something to build on as they as they grow older and as they mature in the faith.

Catechesis was the kind of thing that I did not grow up with. Catholicism would say, we do catechesis; the Catholic Church has a Catechism. But really, catechesis is a Protestant Reformational practice. When I was growing up, we read very little Bible. Even in Catholic parochial school, which I went to from first grade right through college, we studied very little in the Scriptures. And we certainly didn’t get regular, regimented catechesis, learning questions and answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We were not well instructed at all. Despite the fact that we had religious training all throughout, we didn’t learn the faith systematically.

Nonetheless, that’s a beautiful thing that you can look back on God’s faithfulness today and see how he has worked through the “foolishness” of catechesis in your own family, in the next generation. You can share in the great joy that the Apostle John spoke about when he heard that his children, his flock, were “walking in the truth.” Tell us about your own church, your own flock. Where do you serve and how is the Lord using the means of grace to gather and perfect his people there?

Thank you for that. I love my church very much. And it’s a joy to be able to talk about the congregation and the work here in South Austin. I came here in 2014. The congregation in Pflugerville, Texas, which is just to the northeast of Austin, not very far outside city limits—that was the original South Austin Presbyterian Church actually. They were originally meeting in locations on the south side of the city. Then they were able to get a piece of land and build a building, but it was to the northeast in Pflugerville. They ended up moving up there, leaving the south side somewhat untended in terms of Reformed witness. Glen Clary was the pastor there before I arrived at Providence in Pflugerville. And they had a group at that church that was meeting for Bible study down on the south side. There were about 20 to 25 people that were traveling north from South Austin up to Pflugerville for worship on Sunday, and they were desirous of starting a work on the south side.

That Bible study had been going on for five years when they finally called me to come as a church planter. We started worship services in July of 2014, and we became a particular congregation in 2015. From there we began to grow and to develop as the Lord continued to add to our numbers. A couple of years ago, we were able to purchase the building where we now carry out our ministry. Not long after we started worshiping, after we particularized, we had a couple of families come to our church from the New Braunfels area, which is about 45 minutes south of here towards San Antonio. We ministered to those families, and they were desirous of starting a work in New Braunfels. This was funny, because we were praying from the very beginning that the Lord would allow us to become a church-planting church plant. We didn’t want to wait very long to start praying and thinking about the next church plant. And so that’s what ended up happening. Within five years, we ended up starting the work down in New Braunfels. And now in a couple of weeks’ time, Lord willing, the New Braunfels church is going to particularize as a new and regular congregation. We’re really excited about that.

South Austin OPC itself is a very mature congregation. The folks are very serious about the word. They’re absolutely committed to Reformed worship, to the inclusion of Psalms in worship—not exclusively, but inclusive psalmody—and to Reformed orthodoxy. Our elders are very good shepherds. They take good care of the people and are very attentive, patient, kind, and loving. Our deacons are the same. They’re attentive to the needs of the congregation and have done a great job tending to the flock. Anyway, that’s a little bit about us. It’s a congregation that I’m so very much in love with.

What are you preaching and teaching through these days in terms of sermon series or Sunday school, and what fruit is your ministry bearing in the congregation?

In the morning, we are going through the book of James. That has been very useful for all of us, myself, especially. James’ exhortation with regard to the use of our words has been transforming for me, and I think for others, as well. As Reformed Christians, we are a very principled people, and rightly so. We believe that we are to live on the basis of God’s Word, and so we live in a very principled way. And we believe that we can know God and how he wants us to live. But sometimes, when a principled mindset combines with the old nature, we can very quickly allow our zeal to overtake our holiness, our self-discipline, and our restraint. Then sometimes we speak out of a desire to be principled, to stand for the truth, but we do so perhaps in a way that’s not loving and kind and proper and biblical.

James’ exhortations on what it means to suffer have also been a tremendous help to me personally. He’s one of the few places outside of the Book of Job that you can find reference to Job. James is very concerned to instruct the congregation who is obviously suffering. They are suffering persecution and opposition from the world, and James is concerned to teach them what it means to suffer righteously. Sometimes, suffering righteously means guarding your words in such a way that when you’re attacked, you don’t return attack for attack and so forth and so on. That’s been very helpful, I think, to the congregation.

In the evening, I’ve been preaching on 1 Chronicles. We’re going to get to 1 Chronicles 5 this Sunday, Lord willing. The congregation has been remarkably receptive to that series. I thought it would be a flop, quite frankly, because, as you know, the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles is just a list of names except in chapter four where you have the prayer of Jabez. Of course, much has been made of that by some. I did a two-part series on chapter four, focusing exclusively on the prayer of Jabez. There were some little polemics in those sermons, which is appropriate in this instance.

The emphasis that I’ve been trying to underscore, however, is that we are the people of God. Our identity in Jesus Christ is found with the people of God under the old covenant. So when we read these genealogies, we have to understand that they are our genealogies. We’re living in a day and age where there seems to be a renewed interest in family lineage and genealogy. You can take a prick of blood or saliva, send it to some company, and they’ll tell you who your people are. But that’s DNA. We’re talking about something that’s deeper than DNA, which is the covenant of grace. We’re emphasizing our unity in the covenant of grace with the people of old and now showing the way in which the people of God are a people of every tribe, nation, and tongue.

During Sunday school, we’ve been working through R. B. Kuiper’s book on the doctrine of the church, The Glorious Body of Christ. And I talked about that a little bit recently on a Christ the Center episode. That’s been really helpful, especially in the area of church authority and power. I think there’s a lot of confusion out there about what church power and authority is or is not. Kuiper gives us a tonic to avoid an evangelical sort of no-churchism on the one hand, and then a kind of Roman Catholic-authoritarian-dominating kind of approach to authority and power on the other. He gives us the Reformed position. That’s been very helpful and sparked a good deal of interesting conversation in our congregation.

Another area where Kuiper is so good is on the indestructibility of the church. Persecution not only does not destroy the church, but persecution is actually the seed bed of the church. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. The church grows from persecution. The world can’t destroy the church; rather persecution will only advance the cause of Christ in this world. When we suffer righteously, we are identifying most intimately with our savior in his sufferings. The pinnacle point at which we are to imitate Christ is precisely here, in our willing suffering. That doesn’t mean that we go out and ask for it or look for it. Some of the early church fathers were somewhat guilty in this regard, but normally nobody wants to suffer. At the same time, we are willing, like Jesus, and as he calls his disciples to do, to lay our lives down for our friends, the glory of Christ, and the building of the church.

That foolishness of the cross will never become less foolish to the world, but to those who are God’s elect, it is the power of God unto salvation. So keep preaching it, brother! Now we could continue discussing and rejoicing in the Lord’s good work through your ministry in the local church, but I’d love to hear how you are also striving to serve the church in her Colossians 1:28 work through your labors here at Reformed Forum.

My role at Reformed Forum is somewhat supportive, which is great because that’s what I think I’m good at that. I’m not the sort of person that excels at leadership and taking charge and making things happen. Our dear brother Camden, our Executive Director, is excellent at organization, administration, execution of tasks and what not. He’s got the big vision; he knows what he’s doing. I’m here simply as a board member, and as the president of the board, to support him and our faculty—to cheer everybody on and to assist in anything that needs to be done to accomplish our mission.

As a faculty member, I’ve been working on a number of things, including a class on the Gospel of John that I hope to be able to roll out sometime later this year. I also do blog posts and Christ the Center episodes. I try to encourage our Van Til cohort students on Discord (our chat platform). I just see myself as playing a supporting role, throwing myself in anywhere that the Lord opens up for me to encourage, help, and assist. Everybody over there at the new office is doing a great job in terms of getting my material for the Westminster Shorter Catechism classes [Qs. 1–38 and Qs. 39–107] into published, book form. I’ve been working on that manuscript, and hopefully that will come out later on this year.

With the busyness of the pastorate and family, finding time to be able to execute on those projects that I have on my desk is something that is moving along way too slowly. I wish that I was able to produce more as a faculty member, but I remain blessed. The Lord has been gracious and kind. I love what Reformed Forum is doing. To be involved at all is a privilege and an honor. I’m sort of like the free safety in football—just kind of standing by waiting to make an interception or to maybe a tackle. I’m looking to be there when I’m needed and then to fill in that gap as those needs arise. But really, if I aspire to anything, it’s to become the water boy.

That’s one thing that I love about working with you. And the same is true for the other brothers at RF. You have a servant heart. You’re just seeking to live coram Deo and to serve the church. I love that that’s in our mission statement. It’s in our blood, our spiritual DNA. We don’t want to be big shots or to replace the church; we want to be servants to her and to labor unto the glory of our Head, even Jesus Christ, who by his Spirit and word perfects his bride. It’s such a joy to labor with you as a like-minded brother in Christ, to know the bond of peace that we have by the Spirit.  

Psalm 133. It’s better than the oil going down Aaron’s beard and robe. Amen, and amen. And the feeling is mutual brother. Thank you for the great work here that you’re doing for Reformed Forum. We are exceedingly grateful and regard you as a gift from the Lord.

All that I’ve received is from him, and I praise him for that. As we look together unto the Lord to provide the increase for all of our labors, are there any particular things that our listeners and supporters can lift up in prayer on your behalf?

We always covet prayers, the prayers of the saints wherever they may find themselves, for our church and ministry in South Austin. We covet the prayers of God’s people everywhere for the ministry of Reformed Forum for everything that we’re doing, from recording classes to rolling out books and blog posts. Pray that the work of Christ by His Spirit would continue. And I would ask even that it would increase in my heart, so that as I become more like Christ, I will be more effective at showing others how to walk with Christ.

Patrick O’Banion joins us to speak about Girolamo Zanchi and his book, The Spiritual Marriage between Christ and His Church and Every One of the Faithful. O’Banion translated and introduced a new edition of the book published by Reformation Heritage Books. Zanchi was an Italian Reformer, with close ties to Peter Martyr Vermigli.

Developing from Girolamo Zanchi’s exegetical labors through Ephesians, Spiritual Marriage draws readers into the rich theological of doctrine of union with Christ. Following the lead of the apostle Paul, Zanchi demonstrates how our earthly marriages fulfill their truest purpose by drawing our attention toward the spiritual marriage between Christ and His Church. By paying attention to the Genesis account of Adam’s marriage to Eve, to pertinent Old Testament laws, and to the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, we begin to understand something of that higher and heavenly union. This new translation helps us better understand the great mystery of Christ and His bride.

Patrick O’Banion is International Trainer at Training Leaders International.

Chapters

• 00:00:00 Introduction
• 00:05:05 Biographical Introduction to Zanchi
• 00:09:14 Zanchi’s Works
• 00:19:08 Relationship with Peter Martyr Vermigli
• 00:21:39 Zanchi’s Marriage
• 00:24:07 Zanchi’s Acquaintance with Grief
• 00:29:43 Conflict in Chiavenna
• 00:32:53 Conflict in Strasbourg over the Lord’s Supper
• 00:40:35 Thoughts on Zanchi and Conflict
• 00:47:51 Zanchi’s Work, Spiritual Marriage
• 00:52:39 Zanchi and the Typology of Marriage
• 00:54:43 Hermeneutics and Theological Method
• 01:05:53 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Patrick O'Banion

The main events of the Diet of Worms relating to Luther took place from 16 to 18 April 1521. This year marks the 500^th anniversary of the Diet of Worms, and on this occasion, we welcome Dr. Herman Selderhuis to rehearse the events of the diet and share his thoughts about its enduring significance for the church.

The Diet of Worms of 1521 was a formal deliberative assembly of the Holy Roman Empire called by Emperor Charles V and conducted in the city of Worms. Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet in order to renounce or reaffirm his views in response to a Papal bull of Pope Leo X. Luther defended these views and refused to recant them. At the end of the Diet, the Emperor issued the Edict of Worms, condemning Luther and banning citizens from propagating his ideas.

Dr. Herman Selderhuis is Professor of church history and church polity at the Theological University of Apeldoorn and President of the REFORC (Reformation Research Consortium). He is the author or editor of several books:

• Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography (Crossway, 2017)
• John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life (IVP Academic, 2009)
• The Calvin Handbook (editor) (Eerdmans, 2009)
• Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms (Baker Academic, 2007)
• Handbook of Dutch Church History (editor) (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014)
• A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (editor) (Brill, 2013)

Participants: Camden Bucey, Herman Selderhuis

Rev. Dr. David Noe joins us to speak about John Calvin, God or Baal: Two Letters on the Reformation of Worship and Pastoral Service (Reformation Heritage Books), which includes translations of two letters:

• We Must Flee the Forbidden Rites of the Wicked and Maintain the Purity of the Christian Faith
• The Christian Man’s Obligation to Fulfill or Renounce the Priestly Offices of the Papal Church

Calvin most likely wrote these letters in the fall of 1536. Both have a polemical tone and touch upon the subject of worship. These letters are Calvin’s first strong rebuke of two friends, men whom he had known for some time and had clearly expressed evangelical convictions and yet wanted to remain in the positions of privilege and power that they enjoyed within French Catholicism.

Dr. Noe is Professor of Classics at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has also published a translation of Franciscus Junius’ (1545–1602) De Theologia Vera (Reformation Heritage Books) and a translation of Theodore Beza’s (1519–1605) Plana et Perspicua Tractatio De Coena Domini (Reformation Heritage Books).

Links

• Latin Per Diem
• Ad Navseam podcast

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Noe

William Reddinger speaks about strands of resistance theory in the American Revolution, considering Lockean, Continental, and Anglo interpretations of Romans 13. Dr. Reddinger has authored “The American Revolution, Romans 13, and the Anglo Tradition of Reformed Protestant Resistance Theory” in the Summer 2016 issue of American Political Thought.

Some scholars argue that the theology of the American Revolution was fundamentally Lockean and largely incompatible with Christianity, a view that this article calls the Lockean view; more recently, others who advocate what this article calls the Lockean–Reformed view argue that the American Revolution was both Lockean and Reformed and that there is no incompatibility between these sources. This article critiques the Lockean–Reformed view and argues that there were two traditions of resistance theory in early Reformed Protestantism—the Continental tradition and the Anglo tradition. While these two traditions were not monolithic, the distinction is helpful in understanding how the theology of resistance during the American founding was different from the Continental tradition of resistance. It also allows one to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses both of the Lockean view and of the Lockean–Reformed view.

—Article abstract

Dr. Reddinger is Associate Professor of Government, History, and Criminal Justice at Regent University. Prior to coming to Regent, he taught political science at Wheaton College in Illinois and at South Texas College. He received his undergraduate degree from Grove City College in Pennsylvania before completing his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science at Northern Illinois University, where his studies focused on the history of political philosophy and American political thought.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, William Reddinger

Carl Trueman joins us to speak about Socinianism, a non-Trinitarian system of doctrine that arose out of the Radical Reformation and developed in Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries. It was named for the Italian uncle/nephew tandem of Lelio and Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Socinus). While the label is not commonly used in our current historical context, Socinianism developed into contemporary Unitarianism. The Socinian system of doctrine is summarized in The Racovian Catechism.

Dr. Carl Trueman is professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania and the author of numerous books, including The Creedal Imperative. Along with Aimee Byrd and Todd Pruitt, he is a contributor to the Mortification of Spin podcast.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Carl Trueman, Jim Cassidy

Carl Trueman speaks about the Marburg Colloquy, a meeting called by Philip I of Hesse to unite the Protestant states in a political alliance. To accomplish such a union, he sought theological agreement between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. While Luther and Zwingli could agree on fourteen theological points laid out at the meeting, they could not come to terms on the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Dr. Trueman is professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Carl Trueman, Jeff Waddington

Thank you to everyone who visited reformedforum.org/donate throughout the year. We are tremendously grateful for your generous support. Be assured that we’re setting the stage for another big year as our board continues to think and pray about our next steps.

We’re looking forward to another full year of Christ the Center. January 25 marked our 10th anniversary. Jeff, Jim, and I recorded that first episode during my first year in seminary—three homes and three children ago. Things have changed over the years, but our goal has stayed the same. Our mission is to present every person mature in Christ (Col. 1:28).

Episodes

• 524 — Marcus Mininger, Uncovering the Theme of Revelation in Romans 1:16–3:26
• 533 — Michael Kruger, How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church
• 540 — The Nature of Apostasy in Hebrews 6
• 542 — Bill Dennison, Karl Marx
• 551 — The Impeccability of Jesus Christ
• 555 — Darryl Hart, Still Protesting
• 556 — The Deeper Protestant Conception
• 566 — Glen Clary, The Liturgies of Bucer, Calvin, and Knox
• 570 — Danny Olinger, Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologian, Confessional Presbyterian
• 571 — Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, Bavinck’s Philosophy of Revelation

Participants: Adam York, Bill Dennison, Camden Bucey, Cory Brock, Dan Ragusa, Danny Olinger, Darryl G. Hart, Glen Clary, Jared Oliphint, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Lane G. Tipton, Marcus Mininger, Michael Kruger, Nathaniel Gray Sutanto

Glen Clary compares and contrasts the Reformation liturgies of Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and John Knox. Studying each of these helps us to understand the significance of worship reformed according to Scripture and focuses our attention upon worship in our present day.

Further Reading

• Knox Liturgy
• Genevan Liturgy
• Catholic Describes Communion Service in Calvin’s Church
• John Knox and Public Prayer

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

We discuss how a return to sola scriptura through confessional Reformed theology spares us from the errors of Roman Catholicism and modernism. Reformed covenant theology, broadly considered, is facing a crisis regarding what constitutes “reformed” theology. The situation currently is one of chaos and confusion. Some claim that the way forward is by way of retrieving the theology of Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor of the Roman Catholic church, in the service of a so-called “Reformed” apologetic. The line of this argument is that if you follow the Roman Catholic theology and method of Aquinas, you will arrive at Protestant conclusions. Others enlist Aquinas in conversation with the likes of John Webster and Karl Barth, in the interest of retrieving “catholic” tradition in the development of a reformed theological identity. Still others, outside of our reformed circles, are engaged in ecumenical dialogue between Thomas and Barth (Bruce McCormack and Thomas Joseph White’s Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: An Unofficial Dialogue, or Keith Johnson’s Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis, which helpfully to my mind points out the significant points of convergence between the two theologians). It is very much worth pointing out that Van Til virtually predicted this in advance in his sadly neglected but highly important work Confession of 1967, where he says, “If now we live in a dialogical age and if only the church as ecumenical can meet the needs of such an age, then surely the Roman Catholic too must learn to see this fact. As Martin Marty says, “If Protestants and Roman Catholics wish to make possible a creative coexistence, to enrich our pluralistic society, and to profit from each other’s separate histories, they will have to participate in dialogue.…” And what does such “dialogue” look like? Again, Van Til says, “It was Hans Urs von Balthasar who, more than anyone else, has helped Barth to see that Roman Catholicism also begins its theology from the Christ-Event. Roman Catholicism, says von Balthasar, does not believe in direct revelation any more than does Barth. To be sure, Rome does speak of “faith and works,” of “nature and grace,” of “reason and revelation.” But this “and” is not, as Barth thinks, fatal to the idea of the primacy of Christ and of faith in Christ. The whole discussion between Barth and the Roman Catholic position may therefore start from the idea that revelation is revelation in hiddenness. ”The difference between Barth and Roman Catholicism will therefore be not of principle but of degree” (Confession, 119).

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Lane G. Tipton

Darryl G. Hart, Distinguished Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College, joins us to speak about his book, Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters (Reformation Heritage Books). This book addresses the divide between Protestants and Roman Catholics, considering some of the reasons that prompted the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. It emerges particularly from the context of the increasing number of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism, and Hart’s aim is to address some of the most frequent reasons given for abandoning Protestantism.

Links

• DGH at Patheos
• Old Life

Participants: Camden Bucey, Darryl G. Hart, Jim Cassidy

“And though this world with devils filled, should threaten to undo us…”—so penned Luther in his famous hymn A Mighty Fortress is Our God. But on what epistemological basis could Luther (and the whole Christian church for that matter) affirm the existence of devils and spirits in this world? Was it rational to believe that spirits could interact with material bodies so that they could even be deemed a real threat to undo the church? The claim of the existence of the supernatural and the working of the supernatural upon the natural world, including men, was not a self-given, nor a datum of sense experience, but ultimately founded upon the simple teaching of Scripture. There, in the revelation of the triune God, the real struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness is made known, in which heaven and earth, the spiritual and the material, angels and men are shown to be in a dynamic relationship with one another, all according to the wisdom and providence of God. It should come as no surprise, then, that as submission to God’s revelation in Scripture was replaced with the autonomy of man (whether in the form of rationalism or empiricism, as happened with the Enlightenment), the reality of Satan, spirits, and the supernatural would be, at first, doubted and, eventually, rejected in favor of either a dualistic or purely naturalistic conception of reality. This occurred not only in the realm of secular philosophy, but unfortunately also within the church as Cartesian philosophy began to infiltrate and theologians attempted to synthesize it with their theological systems. One such figure within the church, Balthasar Bekker (1634–1698), a Dutch Reformed preacher, came under the “spell” of the new philosophy dominating the age and so deemed it his life mission to “disenchant the world.” And he pursued this in the most dangerous fashion: under the guise of Reformed language and concepts. He received heavy opposition, however, from those within the Reformed church who saw behind his façade, most notably from Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706). Mastricht responded to Bekker’s internationally influential work, Betoverde Weereld (The World Bewitched), in a treatise presented to Classis Amsterdam, entitled, Ad Verum Clariss. D. Balthasaren Beckerum, S. S. Theol. Doct. Epanorthosis gratulatoria.[1] Mastricht recognized that Bekker’s teaching ultimately compromised the basic Reformed principle of the authority of Scripture by subordinating it to an alien philosophy. Yet, there was more than just the relationship of Scripture and philosophy at the (pastoral) heart of Mastricht’s polemic against Bekker. Mastricht also perceived that by not beginning with Scripture as his principium cognoscendi, Bekker had removed the only foundation for true religion, which prohibited him entirely from building a practical superstructure of doxology and worship. In other words, Mastricht’s polemic against Bekker included the fact that by not beginning with Scripture, his theology did not and could not end with worship. Thus, it was not merely a matter of whose principium was correct, but who worshiped the one true God in spirit and truth. The teleological end (worship) of doctrine and theology was directly dependent upon its protological beginning (Scripture) in the mind of Mastricht. Herein we are given a view into the wedding of doctrine and life, theology and piety in the Post-Reformation Reformed thought of Mastricht, which recent scholarship has been beginning to notice in this time period in general. Mastricht does not formulate his doctrine in a rigid, cold way, but in correlation with the exegesis of Scripture and a deep concern for right praxis, a true living to God. This article will first place Mastricht’s work within its historical context, with special attention given to Balthasar Bekker and his controversial four-volume work, Betoverde Weereld. It will then proceed to consider the main arguments of Mastricht’s treatise, noting his fourfold approach that incorporates exegesis, doctrine, elenctics, and praxis.

1. Philosophical Context in General: Cartesianism and Spinozism

Cartesianism in the Netherlands

Descartes moved to the Netherlands in 1628 since he realized that the intellectual atmosphere in Paris was not conducive or tolerant of his new ideas. As a result, his rationalism would come to be a mighty force in the Netherlands that the Reformed church would have to reckon with. In these early stages, Voetius would fend off the influence of Descartes on the Dutch Reformed church from his academic post at Utrecht, always with an eye on the well-being of the church.[20] Cartesianism, however, would develop in a much more variegated way than any kind of strict allegiance to Descartes—resulting in a true Descartes vs. the Cartesians. While it goes beyond the scope of this paper to trace out these differences, it can be noted that “the Dutch Cartesians shared a common viewpoint, a common openness to the New Science, and a common hostility to the Voetian Counter-Reformation.”[21] McGahagan goes on to describe the philosophical climate as follows:

Both early and later Cartesians were also equally insistent on the separation of philosophy and religion. Even the alliance of later Cartesianism with Cocceianism rested on the fact that Cocceianism seemed to offer a theological legitimation of this separation. This separation was not derived from Descartes, who indeed distinguished philosophy from theology, but who also grounded the possibility of an a priori physics in the doctrine of God’s free creation of eternal truths. Rather, the Dutch Cartesian separation of faith and reason can only be understood in the context of their opposition to the Voetian Counter-Reformation.[22]

This would no less be the case with regard to Mastricht’s contention with Bekker in his consideration of the relationship of Scripture and philosophy as well as the proper use of reason as a handmaiden of theology.

Spirits and Spinozism

Jonathan Israel observes, “During the last third of the seventeenth century, the scene was set for a vast triangular contest in Europe between intellectual conservatives, moderates, and radicals overthe status of the supernatural in human life and the reality of the Devil, demons, spirits, and magic.”[23] It was Naude and Hobbes who led the charge in “injecting a measure of scepticism about diabolical power and the reality of spirits.”[24] This eventually led to a full-force campaign that sought to extinguish belief in Satan, spirits and supernatural forces altogether “in complete defiance of received ideas.”[25] This is the expected result when a revelatory epistemology is replaced with a Cartesian rationalism and thorough going philosophical Naturalism that attributes an autonomous existence to the mind of man. Accordingly, nothing beyond man’s rational capacities or immediate sense experiences can be permitted to have any real existence—a case of whatever my net cannot catch, is not fish. Israel notes that this philosophical move was not irreligious, but “part of a broader conceptual attack on authority, tradition, and Revelation.”[26] He continues,

The new philosophy, however, could not totally repudiate the existence of the supernatural. While the Scientific Revolution, the rise of the mechanical world-view, and Lockean empiricism all helped erode the foundations on which older notions about magic, wonder-working, and the supernatural rested, neither Cartesianism with its dichotomy of substances, nor Locke’s epistemology, nor any mainstream trend of the Early Enlightenment provided a rationale for total repudiation of belief in spirits and magic.[27]

The debate over the supernatural was the surface level concern of a deeper and more foundational issue regarding the epistemological significance (or insignificance) of God’s revelation in Scripture. Was Scripture, which spoke of spirits and Satan, authoritative? Or must Scripture submit to the scientific advancements of man and the natural limitations of his mind? The goal of the Reformed and traditional proponents was not to maintain the supernatural for the supernatural’s sake, but to maintain the worldview of Scripture in submission to the Creator of all things. Furthermore, as we will see in Mastricht’s polemic against Bekker, this debate over the supernatural had direct bearing upon man’s knowledge of God and the proper worship and enjoyment of him—the supremely practical concern that wedded doctrine and piety, theology and life in Mastricht’s polemic. Spinoza was one of the strongest protagonists of the campaign against diabolical power and magic. He argued against the existence of devils and spirits in his Korte Verhandeling and was pronounced by Bayle to be the pre-eminent modern adversary of credence in spirits and the supernatural. Bekker was primarily accused of Spinozism by Reformed theologians, most notably Jacobus Koelman,[28] and was specifically criticized for his utilization of a hermeneutic that approximated Spinoza’s, especially with respect to the doctrine of accommodation,[29] and his similar position to Spinoza on the activities of spirits.[30] Bekker, however, criticized Spinoza outright, though his opponents, such as Koelman, objected that this was not genuine but only a guise to cover his heretical ideas.[31] Bekker accused Spinoza of “violating the Dutch Cartesian principle of the separation of religion from philosophy by making philosophy the ‘master of things of belief.’”[32] In addition, he called Spinoza’s philosophy “absurd” and listed as his chief “errors” the following ideas:

1) That there is not substance, that is, independent entity, outside God; and that creatures are but modes, that is ways of God’s existence. 2) That this one substance has two essential characteristics: extension and thought. And there are infinite others that we do not know about. 3) That all depends on an infinite number of causes, following each other in an infinite order and in infinite ways. 4) That no thing or deed is in itself good or bad. 5) That the Holy Scripture was not originally from God and that the holy writers erred in much. 6) That miracles are caused by and can be explained by natural causes.[33]

Andrew Fix, in his evaluation of Bekker’s relation to Spinoza, notes that “although he did not go as far as Spinoza, he did use Spinoza’s exegetical methods for his own attack on spirit belief.”[34] Similarly Jonathan Israel notes, “Spinoza’s influence … clearly underlies Bekker’s claims that philosophical reason is the only valid criterion when investigating ‘natural things,’ and that Scripture is not intended to teach truly about worldly phenomena, but provides explanations adapted to the understanding of ordinary folks so as to help instill obedience to God’s commandments.”[35] The basic issue here is that by utilizing Spinoza’s methodology, which was essentially non-Christian, Bekker’s system itself could not be considered Christian, even if it utilized Christian, even Reformed, language and concepts, as it trended toward skepticism and atheism.

2. Theological Context

Locating Mastricht within Post-Reformation Reformed Orthodoxy

According to the periods proposed by Richard Muller, Mastricht is located within the era of high orthodoxy (ca. 1640–1685–1725). Muller notes that now the “architectonic clarity of early orthodoxy is replaced to a certain extent or at least put to the service of a more broadly developed and even discursive system.”[36] There is an expansion of polemical argumentation and the creative phase of early orthodoxy gives way to a phase of elaboration, refinement, and modification, which is evident in such prominent theologians as Voetius, Turretin, and Mastricht. Muller goes on to describe the posture towards philosophy during this time:

Among the major transitions that took place as Reformed theology passed from early orthodoxy into the high orthodox era was the transition from a philosophical development focused on the reception, assessment, and critical appropriation of the various trajectories of Christian Aristotelianism and of the late Renaissance developments … to the encounter of these older, highly nuanced approach with the new rationalists of the seventeenth century. … [T]he high orthodox, ca. 1640, were beginning to feel the impact of Cartesian thought. Just as the early orthodox era manifests not a monolithic appropriation of the older Aristotelian philosophies, but the reception of elements of various trajectories, so does the high orthodox era manifest varied receptions of the newer rationalism among the Reformed, and, indeed, the continuance of themes and issues from the older trajectories, now modified and altered by the changed philosophical context. Specifically, elements of the older Thomism, Scotism, and nominalism can still be detected as mediated through and modified by philosophical currents in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries—and elements of Cartesian thought and its modifications can also be found both debated and appropriated by various individual Reformed thinkers.[37]

Theological Context in General: Reformed Opponents Embracing Cartesianism

The negative influence of Cartesian rationalism was felt by Reformed theologians on numerous fronts. Old enemies were embracing Cartesian thought, which augmented Reformed skepticism toward and rejection of the new philosophy. For one, the Remonstrants—with whom the Reformed already had to contend with, culminating in the pronouncements against them at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)—continued to veer further and further away from Reformed theology as it embraced Cartesian thought. Muller observes, “[T]he Remonstrant theology posed a major threat to the Reformed and called forth new argumentation, since it was, in its beginning, an offshoot of the Reformed system and, in its development, a highly rationalistic structure allied with Cartesian and eventually with Lockean thought.”[38] Likewise the Socinians more and more embraced the rationalism of Cartesianism that was dominating the age:

The increasingly rationalistic biblicism of the Socinian movement in its seventeenth-century forms posed an even more intense problem for the Reformed orthodox. … [T]he Socinians opposed the balance of revelation and reason advocated by the Reformed and claimed a fundamental biblical basis for their doctrine and repudiated natural theology—at the same time that they argued against the simplicity and infinity of God, denied the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, and proposed an alternative view of the work of Christ. From the Reformed perspective, all of these doctrines appeared to be at the same time the result of a new rationalism and a radically deviant exegesis.[39]

While not as radical as the Remonstrants or the Socinians, Cocceians were also embracing Cartesian philosophy to greater or lesser degrees:

Cocceius himself did not take part in the controversy over Cartesianism – he did not advocate any particular philosophy as a basis for or intellectual partner with theology, but maintained a somewhat eclectic attitude, viewing all philosophy, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, Ramist or Cartesian, as at best a handmaid to theology.[40]

Cocceius’ associate, Heidanus, however, “overtly approved of Cartesian philosophy. … His definition of God as ‘an uncreated, independent, thinking substance’ is clearly Cartesian, as is his discussion of the body and soul in man in terms of thought and extension.”[41] Bekker himself writes concerning Cocceius’ separation of the natural and supernatural: “He held the same course as Descartes, although he sailed in another fairway: wishing all prejudices abolished, and supernatural knowledge sought from Scripture alone; just as the other built natural science exclusively on nature and sound reason.”[42] It should be noted that the Reformed, and particularly Voetius and Mastricht, did not reject Cartesianism simply because its enemies embraced it—as if a friend of my enemy is by necessity my enemy too. Rather, the differing responses to Cartesianism simply manifested previous points of contention between these theological parties. It was the most basic and fundamental Reformed principle of Scripture as authoritative and the sole principium cognoscendi, which neither the Remonstrants nor Socinians consistently embraced in the formulation of their own theological systems, that raised Reformed suspicion against the new philosophy. In other words, this issue only brought to light earlier principial commitments that had surfaced before with respect to other theological loci, but now having an acute bearing on their prolegomena. These theological camps were, therefore, forced to show their cards as to the foundation upon which their systems were built. This is the bottom-line reason for the contention of Mastricht and other Dutch Reformed theologians against the new philosophy of Descartes, Spinoza, and their followers, including Bekker.

3. Balthasar Bekker

His Life and Work in General

Jonathan Israel echoes Luis Antonio Verney as to the four strongest protagonists against diabolical power and magic of the seventeenth century: Anthonie Van Dale, Fontenelle, Christian Thomasius, and Balthasar Bekker.[43] “Of the four, moreover, it was unquestionably Bekker who raised the greatest storm and became the prime focus of controversy.”[44] Israel deems him as “indisputably one of the foremost figures of the European Early Enlightenment.”[45] The severity of this danger was exponentially increased by the fact that Bekker worked under the guise of a Reformed preached and true Christian. Bekker believed that the new philosophy could provide positive support for Reformed theology.[46]This meant that his teaching was not explicitly anti-Christian, yet it was undermining the true faith and led down the path of atheism and skepticism, as Koelman, Mastricht and others would point out. He was ultimately declared an agent of Spinozism and ‘atheism,’ and lumped in with the other novelty theologies that deviated from orthodox belief.[47] Bekker began his studies at Groningen in the early 1650s when the conflict between Cartesianism and anti-Cartesianism first began to shake the university. Israel notes that Bekker desired to be seen by others as a cutting-edge intellectual, which made Cartesianism very attractive for him. He would soon become a fervent Cartesian, even while he began his career as a preacher in the Reformed church.[48] However, he encountered heavy opposition from his ecclesiastical colleagues in Friesland and so transferred to a rural church in Holland in 1674. During this time he recounts a long discussion that he had with Spinoza. “This encounter,” writes Israel, “reflected no liking for Spinoza’s philosophy but rather intellectual commitment and a desire to be at the forefront.”[49] Though as we noted earlier, while Bekker formally rejected the influence of Spinoza on his own thought, this was more of a façade. In 1679 he moved to Amsterdam and began his campaign against the empire of Satan, which would be the defining project of the rest of his life. There he jumped into the controversy over whether comets could be supernatural portents, which he, of course, rejected. Bekker distinguished himself as one eager to “accommodate to theology the latest findings in philosophy and science,” though he was always more willing to sacrifice the former to the later.[50] His real life “mission was to disenchant the world.”[51]

Betoverde Weereld

Bekker began his magnum opus, the Betoverde Weereld (The World Bewitched) in the late 1680s. It consisted of four volumes and would have a major influence not only in the Netherlands, but internationally.[52] The material issue was that of the relationship between spirits and corporal bodies and the doctrine of Satan, whether he was real or merely symbolic. But underlying all of this was the more foundational issue of the relationship between Scripture and philosophy, and whether philosophy must submit to Scripture or Scripture to philosophy. Book I provides an historical survey of views on the supernatural, including spirits and demons. Bekker argues that the Jews, early Christians, and Church Fathers commandeered the distinctly pagan notion of magic and spirits, which was otherwise foreign to Christianity. He then observes that this paganism was exponentially worsened by the Medieval church, which led to deep-rooted superstition regarding the devil and witches and speculation over trite matters regarding angels. While Bekker believed the Reformation restored some sanity to the church in these matters, it did not, in his view, fully exorcise the basically pagan infiltration of the supernatural into Christianity.[53] In Books II-IV he “expounds his philosophical and Scriptural objections to received ideas about magic, Satan, spirits, and witchcraft.”[54]While he claimed to believe whatever is stated clearly in Scripture, his exegetical method indebted to Spinoza and his Cartesian presuppositions, lead him to distinct conclusions that were really opposed to Scripture, as Mastricht will demonstrate.

What he denied was the near universal conviction that Satan, demons, or any spirits can, through spells, possession, bewitchment, or any magical device, alter the normal workings of nature’s laws and influence men’s lives. Sticking rigidly to Descartes’ dichotomy of ‘thought’ and ‘extension,’ he claims their being distinct substances precludes all interaction between the two, so that evil spirits, the essence of which is ‘thought,’ can no more influence bodies than bodies can spirits. Contact between disembodied spirits and humans is completely impossible.[55]

Bekker did believe that God was able to change the course of nature and effect the lives of men, being neither thought (spirit) nor extension (body), for he preceded and transcended all substance. In Book II he disproves various interpretations of Scripture passages that have been garnered in support of the notion that Satan can influence men. His basic exegetical approach was to demonstrate that every such passage that speaks of the intervention of the devil in the lives of men in Scripture was “purely figurative.”[56] Satan, according to Bekker, could not have become a serpent to tempt Eve, nor appear in the wilderness to tempt Christ. Bekker goes on to argue that Satan has actually been chained by God in hell so that he remains completely powerless to effect anything on earth. These passages will be addressed by Mastricht in his treatise against Bekker. In Book III he denies the possibility of men making deals with the devil, which would then exclude all witchcraft, spells, exorcisms, or magic of any kind. The supernatural wonders worked by Pharaoh’s magicians in Scripture accordingly became purely figurative—the common hermeneutic principle utilized to rid Scripture of any teaching on the real interaction of spirits and bodies, the Devil and men. In the final book, Book IV, he “examines a vast catalogue of supposedly attested cases of witchcraft, possession, exorcism, haunted places, soothsaying, and apparitions, showing mankind’s inherent proneness to attribute exceptional events for which a natural explanation is lacking to supernatural forces, and the unfortunate consequences of our doing so.”[57] He then states that it is the Christian duty of the Churches, schools, and courts to insure that men no longer believe magic exists, that the world be disenchanted.

4. Petrus van Mastricht, Ad Verum Clariss. D. Balthasaren Beckerum

Overview of Mastricht’s Fourfold Approach to Theology: Exegesis, Doctrine, Elenctics, Praxis 

Neele observes that in each of the loci of his Theoretica-practica theologia, Mastricht organizes his thoughts into four parts: exegesis, doctrine, elenctics, and ‘pars practica.’[58] This same approach is found in his Ad Verum Clariss. D. Balthasaren Beckerum. While his work addressing Bekker is primarily polemical in nature, this fourfold approach to theology structures the document. In sections XX–XXIX, Mastricht expounds and vindicates Scripture passages that teach the real and historical operation of Satan and spirits in the world and upon man. He also addresses the proper relation of Scripture and Philosophy. In sections XXX–XXXVII, the doctrine of Satan is stated in contrast to Bekker’s formulation. This then leads to a lengthy polemical section, in which the doctrine is defended against possible objections and apparent contradictions with other doctrines (XXXVIII–LVIII). Mastricht then turns to the offense to show the contradictions of Bekker’s position (LIX–LXVII). He finally concludes with a practical concern for the church, addressing the matter of worship and piety (LXVIII–XCV).

Scripture and Exegesis (XIX–XXIX)

As was observed earlier, Bekker, in Book II of Betoverde Weereld, looks to undermine various passages of Scripture which have been used to affirm the interaction and influence of the Devil on men by understanding them as purely figurative. Mastricht makes direct mention of this book and its underlying problem in section XIX. Before looking at specific passages, Mastricht states, Interim tibi plurima objucis Scripturae testimonia, utriusque Instrumenti, quibus, Angelis verae operationes asseruntur. He then notes the positive activity of the angels in announcing to Abraham the future birth of his son, Isaac (Gen. 18:10) and to Mary the birth of Jesus (Luke 1). Scripture also records angels announcing the birth of Christ to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-14) and his resurrection to the disciples at the end of each gospel, as well as his ascension (Acts 1:10-11). Mastricht notes the positive role of the angels in rescuing Lot from the destruction of Sodom (Gen. 19), Daniel from the lion’s den (Dan. 5), and the apostles from prison (Acts 5:19; 12:7). Angels are also said to accompany Christ when he comes again (Matt 25:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; Heb. 1:14). So, says, Mastricht, et quae sunt hujus generis fexcenta alia. If spirits are mere thoughts, as Bekker proposed, then how can they have this influence upon the world, as Scripture ascribes to them: quia, ceu spiritus, non sint nisi merae cogitationes, quibus non competant operationes ad extra.[59] These cannot be mere figments of man’s imagination, as Bekker argued.[60] Mastricht will next take up more specific passages in order to vindicate them against Bekker who would read them as purely symbolic or figurative.

 Vindication of Scripture Passages

The main question of section XX is whether evil spirits, after the primal temptation, still work in humans? Bekker, Mastricht notes, has consigned every evil spirit to chains in hell so that they can no longer be at work in the world. Whereas Bekker has no place in Scripture to maintain this position, Mastricht claims many (infinita) places for his position. He then appeals to the Classis on the basis that Bekker ultimately makes God out to be a liar who would fool the common person by accommodating his revelation to their error and false ideas. He writes,

Dic tibi quaeso Clariss. per tuam conscientiam si daremus quod non facimus Deum in negotiis naturalibus levioris momenti se quandoque componere ad erroneam vulgi opinionem num tibi persuadere possis ad unum omnes Prophetas, Apostolos, ipsumque Servatorem circa errorem tanti momenti per quem tibi Scriptura non potest esse verbum Dei per quem tibi Scriptura non potest non potest esse nec Jehova Deus nec Christus Messias…

Following this general critique, he takes up in section XII, 2 Peter 2:4, which Bekker appeals to in order to affirm that the devils and evil spirits are currently chained in hell and so incapable of being at work in men. Mastricht affirms that the devils are damned to eternal prison, but he denies that they should no more deceive at present because their sentence at present does not limit them to a specific place since they wander in chains (velut in catenis vagetur). However, it is true that they cannot escape their sentence to aeternae condemnationi. Next in section XXII Mastricht considers the temptation narrative in Genesis 3 to vindicate it against Bekker who does not read it as historical. He makes the point that Scripture does not say that Satan deceived through or by means of a serpent, but that the serpent who deceived esse satanamunder the providence of God. Mastricht utilizes the Reformed principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture and appeals to Revelation 12:9 to support this reading of Genesis 3, as well as contrasting it with the account of Balaam’s donkey. Mastricht concludes that Bekker’s interpretation has two main problems: (1) it destroys the factuality of the temptation and (2) paves the way for skepticism and atheism. He makes a similar argument in the vindication of the historical nature of Christ’s temptation by the devil in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-12; Mark. 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-14) in section XXIII. Mastricht argues that if you say the devil truly tempted Christ, then you must be able to say that he was also at work in the first temptation. But Bekker says that they are not to be understood as literal (non omnia inquis ad literam hic sunt intelligendae). Again, Mastricht charges this interpretation as leading to skepticism and atheism: Quo tandem ista sese exoneraunt, nisi in Scepticismum & Atheismum? In section XXIV Mastricht seeks to vindicate Jude 9 from Bekker’s interpretation that does violence to the text. He does not see a problem with this passage if one simply learned to, first, believe the Scriptures, second, overturn ratiocinations& omnem sublimitatem,and third, have their mind captive to the obedience of Christ. He refers to 2 Cor. 10:4-5, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…” In section XXV he considers the account of Satan inciting David to take a census, which was punished by the Lord, in 1 Chronicles 21:1. How does this relate, he asks, to 2 Samuel 24:1 where it is said that not Satan, but the Lord incited David? Mastricht answers this apparent contradiction by stating the simple point that the way in which God and Satan cause the same even can differ. God is the efficient cause and wisely permits it, while Satan is the perpetrator (idem diverso sensu possee tribui, & Deo & satanae: Deo, ut causae efficaciter & sapientissime permittentidirigentique; & satanae, ut pessime perpetranti). He then takes up the vindication of Job 1:11 in section XXVI. He sees a good argument for evil spirits conversing with men in 1 Samuel 28 and Acts 16:16. He then takes up Bekker’s objection to Satan being granted permission by the Lord to inflict Job with dirissmus calamitatibus and for Job to have been declared by the Lord to be in Satan’s hand (Job 1:12; 2:6). His basic argument again uses Scripture to interpret Scripture, appealing to Psalm 37:37. He also appeals to the analogia vel fidei and the context (vel contextus), and utilizes the original languages. He again notes how this passage does not coincide with Bekker’s point that Satan is chained in hell so that he cannot roam the earth. Mastricht affirms that while Satan does not operate outside the power, knowledge, and providence of God, he does still in fact operate nonetheless. So far Mastricht has shown that Scripture clearly teaches the activity of Satan and evil spirits in the world after the first temptation. He summarizes: hactenus sinfulis militavimus Scripturae testimoniis, & expugnavimus, satanam vere seduxisse Protoplaftos, tentasse Christum, dimicasse cum Michaele, incitasse Davidem, ut Israelem numeraret, Jobum exagitasse, confestis in eum calamitatibus; dimicasse exagitasse congestis in eum. In section XXVII, he adds to this the manifold teaching of Scripture about Satan and devils, including their nature (indole) in 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 11:24; John 8:44; strength or power (viribus) in Acts 26:18; and business or activities (negotio). The third is described in general in 2 Thess. 2:9. In addition, Satan is said to take away the word in Mark 4:15. In 2 Cor. 7:5; 1 Cor 2:10; Rev. 12:9, 10 he is said to accuse. There is also his activity mentioned in Luke 22:31; 22:3; John 13:17; Acts 5:3; 1 Thess. 2:18; Rev. 2:9, 13. Scripture also includes Satan’s mode of agency (agendi modo) in 2 Cor. 11:14 as he disguises himself as an angel of light. He is also presently captured (captivus) in Rev. 20:7 and nearing his destruction (de appropinquante ejus exitio) according to Luke 11:18; Rom. 16:20; Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10. Having considered all those passages of Scripture that have now been vindicated, Mastricht says that we are to be convinced that Satan continues to operate in humans and that we must acknowledge snakes and witches (Pythonibus & Pythonissis), the angel Satan (Angelis satanae), the possessed (de energumenis), evil spirits (malignis spiritibus), demonic apparitions (apparitionibus daemoniorum), the kingdom of Satan (regno satanae), kingdom of darkness (regno tenebrarum), that he is the god of this world (Deus sit hujus seculi), the prince of this world (princeps hujus mundi), emperor of the dead (imperium mortis habeat), lord of the air (in aere dominetur), etc. Thus, argues Mastricht, Scripture attributes much to Satan and therefore all Christians (universali Christianismo) receive this doctrine of Satan. And for those who reject it, si Deus juvet.

Scripture and Philosophy

In section XXIX, Mastricht guards against the abuse of philosophy (cavendum ab abusu Philosophiae) that would otherwise do violence to the Scriptures and theology. He rhetorically asks, if there is no passage in Scripture that affirms Satan is no longer active with men after the primal temptation, and if the common consensus of all Christians is that he is still at work, then what can possibly be Bekker’s objection against it? In short, his objection cannot be based on Scripture or the analogia fidei. Bekker is opposed to the totality of Scripture (adversus totam Scriptram) and not only the general knowledge of the Church, but also the sense of the world (mundi sensum). So Van Mastricht asks, Cum igitur Scriptura, sicut demonstravimus, non potuerit; quid potuit, si non Philosophia? The objection does not arise from Scripture, but from an a priori commitment to alien philosophical system. In other words, his theological conclusions are formed by a more basic philosophy, not revelation. Quae doceat, spiritum non operari extra se? Van Mastricht points out that Bekker says in the preface to his first book that he rejects the operation of spirits in humans ex Philosophia agnosceres. Van Mastricht points out that in most controversial heads, Scripture is said to err because his thought is governed by philosophy. He finds support for this in chapter 25, paragraph 15 and chapter 9, paragraph 6, and the preface to book one, as Bekker writes, te omnium minime satisfacturum his, qui Cartesii fundamenta rejiciunt, juxta quae, spiritum & corpus distinguas. Van Mastricht follows Paul in warning and guarding against deceptive teaching and philosophy that would overturn the wisdom and revelation of God in Scripture, as he cites 2 Cor. 11:1ff.; 1 Tim. 6:20; Col. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:4; 2 Cor. 1:12. This was true long ago with Paul and continues to be the case (quae tot olim praecipites dedit, & etiamnun dat). This knowledge is not pleasing to God that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ (extollit adversus cognitionem Christi). He concludes by asking whether Scripture must give way or concede (cedat) to philosophy or philosophy to Scripture? “Mastricht argued that Bekker placed philosophy above Scripture and that theology was being relinquished to the axiom ‘philosophy is the infallible interpreter of Scripture.’”[61]

Scripture and his Fourfold Approach

It is telling that Mastricht begins his polemic against Bekker with the vindication of Scripture since it is for him the principium cognoscendi of his theology. With that being said, this means that his Scriptural exegesis cannot be isolated from the subsequent sections that deal with doctrine, elenctics, and praxis. As Neele observes, “Mastricht’s exegesis cannot be evaluated without reading of his doctrinal, elenctical, and practical reflections on the theological subject in which consists the interconnectedness of his fourfold approach arising from the text of Scripture a parallel approach integrally present in Calvin’s Scripture commentary.”[62]

Doctrine (XXX–XXXVII)

Mastricht next looks at the reasons Bekker proposes for why spirits cannot interact with the body. He reproduces Bekker’s logic: If the devil is a spirit, and spirit is only thought, and thought does not have contact with the body, then (working backwards), the spirit does not act on the body, and if the spirit does not act on the body, then neither does the devil who is spirit. Mastricht goes on to affirm that the devil is spirit, but he rejects the proposition that there is no communion or interaction between spirit and body and instead proposes in section XXXV that spirits can operate in and on bodies. He rejects Bekker on the basis that his proposition is owing to a Cartesian dualism that assumes that spirit is thought and body is extension. Mastricht, on the other hand, affirms the operation of spirits on bodies on the basis of Scripture. While Cartesianism cannot find a unity within creation to bring together spirit and body, the spiritual and material, and so end up with a hard dualism, Mastricht locates the unity of the two with God who ultimately brings them together.

Elenctics (XXXVIII–LXVII)

Having affirmed the doctrine that Satan can operate on and influence men even after the primal temptation in the Garden, Mastricht proceeds to defend this claim against possible objections, before going on the offense against Bekker’s teaching.

Defense (XXXVIII–LVIII)

He argues that the monarchy of God is not annulled by this teaching, nor the oneness of God denied—that is, the affirmation of the Devil does not require ditheism or Manicheanism. Furthermore, the doctrine of Satan does not impede the kingdom of Christ, nor does violence to the deity of the Son and the Spirit. It does not do harm to the authority of Scripture or to the Christian religion. The operation of Satan, states Mastricht, does not tear down the authority of Scripture. Neither does this doctrine take away from the fear of the Lord, detract from the holiness of God, harm the truthfulness or goodness of God, nor the honor of angels, nor love towards one’s neighbor. It does not teach that sins or crimes are derived from the temptation of Satan, which would relinquish man of his responsibility, nor does it lead to any sins against God or other men.

Offense (LIX–LXVII)

The teaching of Bekker, on the other hand, subverts the authority of Scripture and, on account of that, the whole Christian religion (see esp. sections LX and LXII). Bekker’s teaching also defaces the fear and reverence of God and leads to positioning people in morally dangerous positions as it encourages disregard for guarding against the temptations of the evil one. It also leads to the neglect of love toward one’s neighbor.

Summary: Doctrine Measured by Love

Overall, Mastricht’s polemic against Bekker considers whether the doctrine lends itself to love for God and for neighbor. In other words, along with its goal in worship, as will be demonstrated in the following section, there is also the practical working out of faith in love that fuels Mastricht’s thought. The affirmation of Satan is required for a true love for God and neighbor in fulfillment of the law of God.

Praxis (LXVIII–XCV)

In section LXVIII, Mastricht states that the doctrine of the devil is efficacious to the worship of God, that is, to true piety (efficax esse ad pietatem). This is so because it emphasizes or illustrates the majesty and glory of God as it sets up a diametrical contrast of him with Satan, who is opposed to every good thing. This doctrine also explains the misery of those who are under the power of the devil and, therefore, again by contrast, the joy of those who have come under the reign and rule of Christ. This doctrine further warns that the convocation of sin is demonic, which keeps God’s people from indulging themselves. It also incites God’s people to shrink back from the image of Satan and to desire conformity to the image of Christ and fellowship with the Son of God. It forbids fellowship with all evil and sin, and makes God’s people strong and resilient through trials and temptations. Finally, it provides comfort from the assaults of the devil against God’s people and his church, since they know that Satan is under the power and knowledge of God and must serve his ultimate purposes.

5. Comparing Mastricht and Bekker

Having now considered the historical context and teaching of Bekker in Betoverde Weereld, as well as the correlation of exegesis, doctrine, elenctics, and praxis in Mastricht’s polemic against him, we now turn to a comparison of the two on a couple key issues. First, as to the subject of the relationship between Scripture and philosophy, Bekker sought to subordinate Scripture to his Cartesian philosophy. This was especially evident in his exegetical and hermeneutical method that sought to conform the clear and simple teaching of Scripture on Satan and evil spirits to the dualistic spirit/body schema of Descartes. Accordingly, spirits as thought and bodies as extension could not have any interaction. This meant for Bekker that every passage in Scripture that seemed to teach their interaction must be written off as purely symbolic or figurative. Mastricht, on the other hand, subordinated philosophy to Scripture as its servant and handmaiden. Philosophy was helpful insofar as it aided in the explanation of Scripture, but was to be rejected wherever it contradicted its clear teaching. Thus, because Scripture affirms the interaction of spirits and bodies, Satan and men, so did Mastricht. Exegetically Mastricht avoids the elaborate and circus-like playing with the text that was required by Bekker to fit Scripture into his philosophy. Instead, Mastricht drew out the clear meaning and intention of the Scripture text, used Scripture to interpret Scripture as was common in the Reformed tradition, and appealed to the analogia fidei and the Reformed catechism as a catholic-Reformed Christian. We also recognize that while Bekker was playing games with philosophy under the guise of theology, Mastricht refused to join him by pitting Aristotelianism (or any other philosophy) against Bekker’s Cartesianism. Mastricht, instead, was a Reformed theologian of the highest order who was faithful to the only foundation of the true, Christian religion: the self-revelation of God in Scripture. Finally, Mastricht exhibits a heart for true piety, which is absent from the intellectualizing of Bekker. Mastricht saw that the rejection of this doctrine of Satan not only revealed a deeper epistemological issue as to the autonomous princpium cognoscendi in Bekker’s thought, but also a corrupting of piety and the true worship of God. Whereas Mastricht aimed at living to God in true piety, Bekker sought dying to man in philosophical inquisitiveness.

Conclusion

Mastricht has yet to fully penetrate the English world, which makes him ripe for further study. While past scholarship has only noted his epistemological concern with Bekker who was subordinating Scripture to philosophy, this article has attempted to draw out his equally crucial concern for piety in his polemic. All doctrine, including the doctrine of Satan and spirits, has a doxological purpose and is efficacious towards the true worship of God. Mastricht demonstrates this by wedding Scriptural exegesis, doctrine and praxis as a threefold polemical response against Bekker. The foundational error of Bekker, which stemmed from the improper formulation of the relationship between Scripture and philosophy, led to the teleological error of compromised (and, therefore, false) worship of God. Thus, far from a mere desire to maintain rigid, cold doctrinal standards, the placement of his doctrine and elenctics between Scripture and doxology in this polemical work is telling. Doctrine was not an isolated discipline for Mastrict. Rather, for him it had its beginning in the proper exegesis of Scripture—as to its simple meaning and in accordance with the analogia fidei and the Reformed confessions—and served the worship of God as its ultimate end. Theology and piety, doctrine and life were woven together in the polemical concerns of Mastricht who began with Scripture and ended with worship.

[1]Petrus van Mastricht, Ad Verum Clariss. D. Balthasaren Beckerum, S. S. Theol. Doct. Epanorthosis gratulatoria. Occasione Articulorum, quos Venerandae Classi Amstelodamensi exhibuit. die XXII Janu. 1692. Exarata a Petro van Mastrioht(Anthenium Schouten, 1692). [2]Ernst Bizer, “Reformed Orthodoxy and Cartesianism,” in Journal for Theology and the Church, vol. 2, Translating Theology into the Modern Age, ed., Robert Funk (New York, 1965); orig. “Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianismus,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 55 (1958). [3]Ernst Bizer, “Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianimus,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche55 (1958), cited by Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht(1630-1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 35 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 7. [4]Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 26 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2006). [5]Ibid.,2. [6]Ibid., 5. [7]Ibid., 331. [8]Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht(1630-1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 35 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2009). This study arises from his earlier doctoral dissertation The Art of Living to God: A Study of Method and Piety in the Theoretica-practica theologia of Petrus van Mastricht(1630-1706)(Th.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, 2005: Pretoria: Pretoria University Pres, 2005). [9]Ibid., 1. [10]Ibid., 1. [11]Also observed by Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:62. [12]Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, 285. [13]See Neele, Petrust van Mastricht, 54-55; 103; 285. [14]Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, 55. “Mastricht’s concern was, in a broader context, whether Scripture yielded to philosophy or the latter to the former. Either Scripture is the eternal, true, and authentic Word of God, held Mastricht, or the world will be overrun by philosophy, skepticism, and atheism” (ibid., 103). [15]“Accommodation—Orthodox, Socinian, and Contemporary,” Westminster Theological Journal 75 (2013): 335-48. [16]Lee cites Mastricht’sVindiciae veritatis et authoritatis Sacrae Scripturae in rebus philosophicis(Utrecht: Jonhannis Waesberge, 1655). [17]Andrew Fix, “Bekker and Spinoza,” in Disguised and Overt Spinozism Around 1700: Papers Presented at the International Colloquium, Held at Rotterdam, 5-8 October, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History vol. 69 (Brill, 1996), 29. [18]Balthasar Bekker, De philosophia cartesiana admonitio candida et sincera(Wesel: Andrea Hoogenhuysen, 1668), 10, cited by Lee, “Accommodation,” 337. See also Bekker, De Betoverde Weereld(Deventer, 1739.) 2:143-79. [19]Lee, “Accommodation,” 337. [20]For a study on Voetius and Descartes’ interactions, see Thomas Arthur McGahagan, Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 1639-1676: The New Science and the Calvinist Counter-Reformation(Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1976). His study primarily deals with Voetius and makes only a brief comment about Mastricht that he “maintained the anti-Cartesian campaign after 1676,” which goes beyond the focus of his study (p. 53). The same historical limitation is found in Theo Verbeek’s work Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy 1637-1650(Cardondale and Edwardville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), who accordingly makes no mention of Mastricht. For more on Voetius and Descartes, see Von Erst Bizer, “Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianismus,” 307-29; B. Hoon Woo, “The Understanding of Gisbertus Voetius and Rene Descartes on the Relationship of Faith and Reason, and Theology and Philosophy,” Westminster Theological Journal75, no. 1 (Spr 2013): 45-63; Andreas J. Beck, Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676): Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre(Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). [21]McGahagan, Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 106. [22]Ibid.,109. [23]Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 375. [24]Ibid. [25]Ibid. [26]Ibid., 376. [27]Ibid. [28]Jacobus Koelman, Wederlegging van Balthasar Bekker’s Bestoverde Wereld(Amsterdam, 1692), 118. [29]Wiep van Bunge, “Balthasar Bekker’s Cartesian Hermeneutics and the Challenge of Spinozism,” The British Journal for the History of Philosophy1 (1993): 55-79. [30]Fix, “Bekker and Spinoza,” 23. [31]Ibid., 23. [32]Ibid., 24. [33]Kort Begryp del Aldemeine Kerkelyke Historien, Zedert het Jaar 1666 daar Hornius eindigt, tot den Jare 1684 (Amsterdam, 1739), 38, cited by Fix, “Bekker and Spinoza, 24. [34]Fix, “Bekker and Spinoza,” 35. [35]Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 384. [36]Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:73. [37]Ibid., 1:74. [38]Ibid., 1:75. [39]Ibid. [40]Ibid., 1:77; see also Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669)(Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 81-89. [41]Muller, PPRD, 1:78. [42]Bekker, Kort begrijp, cited by McGahagan, 386. For more on the relationship of Cocceianism and Cartesianism, see McGahagan, Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 365-67. [43]Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 378. [44]Ibid. [45]Ibid., 405. [46]McGahagan, Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 11. [47]Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 378. [48]Ibid. [49]Ibid. [50]Ibid. [51]Ibid., 379. [52]See Israel,Radical Reformation, 392-405; Andrew Fix, “What Happened to Balthasar Bekker in England? A Mysery in the History of Publishing,” CHRC90.4 (2010): 609-31. [53]Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 379. [54]Ibid., 380. [55]Ibid. [56]Ibid. [57]Ibid., 381. [58]Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, 139. [59]He also writes, Quantum assequor, non aliud, quam quod, ex placitis Philosophiae, spiritui, ceu merae cogitationi, non possint competere vires, quibus operetur extra se, id quod suo loco, ex prosesso discutiemus. [60]Existimant, pleraque Scripturis narrata, de Angelorum operationibus, tibi non esse nisi figmenta & imaginationes, quibus nihil minus intendatur, quam quod verba sonant. [61]Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, 55. “Mastricht’s concern was, in a broader context, whether Scripture yielded to philosophy or the latter to the former. Either Scripture is the eternal, true, and authentic Word of God, held Mastricht, or the world will be overrun by philosophy, skepticism, and atheism” (p. 103). [62]Neele, “The Reception of John Calvin’s Work by Petrus van Mastricht,” Church History and Religious Culture, 91, no. 1-2 (2011): 163.

The great Dutch theologian of the Nadere Reformatie, Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706), has only recently been introduced to the English-speaking world with the publication of his Theoretica-practica theologia (Theoretical and Practical Theology). In this article we will survey past scholarship on Mastricht, anticipating that further studies will emerge in the light of this new translation.

Jonathan Edwards: Better than Turretin

In 1747, Jonathan Edwards wrote the following to Joseph Bellamy:

As to the books you speak of: Mastricht is sometimes in one volume, a very large thick quarto, sometimes in two quarto volumes. I believe it could not be had new under 8 or 10 pounds. Turretin is in three volumes in quarto, and would probably be about the same price. They are both excellent. Turretin is on polemical divinity, on the 5 points & all other controversial points, & is much larger in these than Mastricht, & is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine, practice & controversy, or as an universal system of divinity; & it is much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.

Richard Muller: Locating Mastricht

In his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Richard Muller locates Mastricht within the era of high orthodoxy (ca. 1640–1685–1725). Muller notes that at this time the “architectonic clarity of early orthodoxy is replaced to a certain extent or at least put to the service of a more broadly developed and even discursive system.”[1] There is an expansion of polemical argumentation and the creative phase of early orthodoxy gives way to a phase of elaboration, refinement, and modification, which is evident in such prominent theologians as Voetius, Turretin, and Mastricht. Muller goes on to describe the posture towards philosophy during this time as Reformed theology now encountered the new ideas of autonomy introduced by the Enlightenment:

Among the major transitions that took place as Reformed theology passed from early orthodoxy into the high orthodox era was the transition from a philosophical development focused on the reception, assessment, and critical appropriation of the various trajectories of Christian Aristotelianism and of the late Renaissance developments … to the encounter of these older, highly nuanced approach with the new rationalists of the seventeenth century. … [T]he high orthodox, ca. 1640, were beginning to feel the impact of Cartesian thought. Just as the early orthodox era manifests not a monolithic appropriation of the older Aristotelian philosophies, but the reception of elements of various trajectories, so does the high orthodox era manifest varied receptions of the newer rationalism among the Reformed, and, indeed, the continuance of themes and issues from the older trajectories, now modified and altered by the changed philosophical context. Specifically, elements of the older Thomism, Scotism, and nominalism can still be detected as mediated through and modified by philosophical currents in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries—and elements of Cartesian thought and its modifications can also be found both debated and appropriated by various individual Reformed thinkers.[2]

Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) had waged a strong polemic against the encroachment of Cartesianism upon the church and theology, which sought to subvert the authority of Scripture to an alien philosophy and special revelation to autonomous human reasoning. This mantle of maintaining the basic Reformation principle of sola Scriptura would be taken up by Mastricht at the University of Utrecht. In a future article we will consider Mastricht’s polemic against Cartesianism.

Ernst Bizer: Mastricht First Introduced into the English World

The Reformed scholastics in the Netherlands, including Mastricht, were first introduced into the English world with Ernst Bizer’s essay that was translated from the German in 1965.[3] This was the primary source at the time in English on conservative Calvinism in the Dutch Republic. He purports a pro-Cartesian interpretation of the Dutch Reformed theologians and argues that while Mastricht and others opposed Cartesianism, they were nevertheless “bound to confuse their outmoded worldview with their faith [and] their concept of truth was closer to the ‘new philosophy’ than is suspect.”[4] This view, however, has been challenged by more recent scholarship.

Aza Goudriaan: The Relationship between Philosophy and Scripture

Aza Goudriaan, in his volume, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750, focuses on the relationship of theology and philosophy as formulated in the thought of three key Dutch Reformed theologians: Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), and Anthonius Driessen (1684–1748).[5] All three were at the forefront of the philosophical debates that swirled in the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially instigated by the arrival of Renee Descartes (1596–1650) in the Netherlands in 1628. “If it is true,” Goudriaan writes, “that orthodox Protestant theologians made more extensive use of philosophy than the Reformation itself, the question can be posed how they actually used philosophy. Or it can be asked what theological positions they held in areas that philosophers could also reckon to their territory.”[6] By studying these three theologians, Goudriaan “seeks to understand better how Dutch Reformed theology integrated and responded to philosophical views in the period from 1625 through 1750.”[7] Voetius, professor of theology at the University of Utrecht, was initially the premier defender against the Cartesian encroachment upon the Dutch Reformed Church that sought to undermine both her theology and piety. This mantle would be taken up by his successor at the university, Petrus van Mastricht. As might be expected, Goudriaan demonstrates that Voetius and Mastricht were in essential agreement with one another in their theology and polemic against Cartesianism as they engaged it from distinctly Reformed premises and commitments. Goudriaan deals successively with specific loci where the relationship between theology and philosophy was acutely tried and tested, including: reason and revelation; creation and the physical world; the providential rule of God over the world; anthropological issues of the relationship between the soul and the body; and divine and natural law. He notes that both Voetius and Mastricht had aligned themselves with the older Aristotelian philosophy against the newer Enlightenment philosophy, yet the debate was not waged over whose philosophical system was correct. This in itself would have been a losing concession, for it was precisely their aim that Reformed theology not be corrupted by alien philosophical concepts or categories that ultimately undermined Scriptural authority and teaching. Philosophy was instead viewed by them as an instrument or servant of the most basic Reformed principle, namely, the authority of Scripture as their principium cognoscendi. For them Scripture was not subordinated to philosophy, but philosophy to Scripture. This starting point alone accounted for the full-orbed nature of creation with its rich diversity, including spirits and bodies, heaven and earth, which Cartesian dualism could not account for or bring into any real, dynamic relation. Because of this common commitment to the Reformed principle of Scripture’s authority, Goudriaan observes, “the theological development from Voetius to Driessen supports the broader claim that biblical Christianity outlives the philosophical and conceptual apparatus with whose help it is explained.”[8] To put it another way, philosophy was not the indispensable lord of theology, but its disposable handmaiden—it would, therefore, continue even when philosophies changed or failed. Goudriaan’s conclusions are consistent with what we see in Mastricht’s Ad Verum Clariss. D. Balthasaren Beckerum. He does not utilize Aristotelianism to combat Bekker’s Cartesian and Spinozistic intention of disenchanting the world by casting doubt on the existence of spirits, including the devil, and rejecting any interaction between spirits and bodies. Rather, he formulates his argument on the basis of Scripture as its starting point and the true worship of God as its goal, thus wedding theology and piety.

Adriaan Neele: Doctrine and Piety

The only book-length treatment devoted wholly to Mastricht in English is Adriaan Neele’s Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety.[9] In this work Neele “deals with the post-Reformation Reformed concern for right doctrine and piety.”[10] He addresses a misunderstanding of past scholarship that has essentially separated the two. Neele describes the situation as follows:

In respect to [doctrine], scholarship has tended to appraise the theology of the seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox era, which includes the Nadere Reformatie, Puritanism and Pietism, as rigid and polemic; i.e., an abstract doctrine with little or no regard for practical significance. Consequently, the concern for orthodox doctrine has been seen as stalling the biblical exegesis of that era. In particular such exegesis has been critiqued for serving only to proof-text dogmatic and polemic works. Furthermore, the concern for doctrine has been regarded as leading to the relapse to Scholasticism and the neglect of the vitality of the Reformer’s humanism. … In respect to piety or praxis pietatis, which is a distinct feature of the seventeenth-century Reformed thought, scholarship has often negatively appraised its subjectivism, mysticism, and pietism, which deviated from Scripture. In addition, piety usually is described in opposition of the post-Reformation Reformed (Scholastic) orthodoxy. Contrary to these two emerging perspectives, more recent scholarship recognizes that piety is a working out of the theology of the seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy, which includes methodological aspects of scholasticism and Renaissance humanism.[11]

Neele redresses these issues by demonstrating the way in which Mastricht wedded doctrine and piety, theology and life, and correlated Scripture, doctrine, and praxis in his Theoretico-practica theologia, with particular focus on his Doctrine of God.[12] As this was Mastricht’s magnum opus, Neele has laid a substantial foundation for the direction of future Mastricht studies. The aim of his study, however, was not exhaustive, even as he invites “further study on Mastrich’s life and work, so that a fuller portrait may emerge and more completeness may be achieved in respect to the content of his publications.”[13] This invitation Theoretical and Practical Theology now available from Reformation Heritage Books.

[1] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:73. [2] Ibid., 1:74. [3] Ernst Bizer, “Reformed Orthodoxy and Cartesianism,” in Journal for Theology and the Church, vol. 2, Translating Theology into the Modern Age, ed., Robert Funk (New York, 1965); orig. “Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianismus,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 55 (1958). [4] Ernst Bizer, “Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianimus,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche55 (1958), cited by Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht(1630-1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 35 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 7. [5] Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 26 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2006). [6] Ibid.,2. [7] Ibid., 5. [8] Ibid., 331. [9] Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 35 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2009). This study arises from his earlier doctoral dissertation The Art of Living to God: A Study of Method and Piety in the Theoretica-practica theologia of Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706) (Th.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, 2005: Pretoria: Pretoria University Pres, 2005). [10] Ibid., 1. [11] Ibid. [12] Also observed by Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:62. [13] Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, 285.

William VanDoodewaard speaks to us about Martin Bucer, John Knox, and the development of pastoral care during the Reformation. Dr. VanDoodewaard is professor of church history at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the author of 1 & 2 Peter: Feed My Sheep (Welwyn Commentary Series), The Quest for the Historical Adam, and The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, William VanDoodewaard

Jonathan Gibson and Mark Earngey speak about Reformation worship. Their new book Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present, is an irenic plea for the Church (and especially her ministers) to engage again in the two-millennia-old question: “How then shall we worship?” Along with chapters on the Scriptural and historical basis for Reformed worship, Gibson and Earngey include twenty-six Reformation era liturgies modernized and newly translated. Dr. Gibson is Assistant Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Westminster Theological Seminary. Mr. Earngey is a doctoral candidate in historical theology at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford.

Links

• Reformation Worship book website
• Jonathan Gibson, Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jonathan Gibson, Mark Earngey

Camden and Erica Bucey discuss several helpful books for parents as they disciple their children and women in a variety of study group settings. They offer brief notices of several recent books.

• Chap Bettis, The Disciple-Making Parent (Diamond Hill Publishing)
• Jason Helopolous, Let the Children Worship (Christian Focus)
• Keri Folmar, The Doctrine of Scripture for Every Woman [The Good Portion Series] (Christian Focus)
• Melissa Kruger, Walking with God in the Season of Motherhood (WaterBrook Press)
• Nancy Guthrie, The Promised One [Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament] (Crossway)
• Knowing the Bible Series (Crossway)
• Jen Wilkin, The Sermon on the Mount (LifeWay Press)

Participants: Camden Bucey, Erica Bucey

Camden Bucey and Ryan Noha serve brief notice on several new books from P&R Publishing and a worthwhile biography.

• Martin Greschat (Stephen E. Buckwalter, trans.), Martin Bucer: A Reformed and His Times
• Luder G. Whitlock, Jr., Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity
• Sean Perron and Spencer Harmon, Letters to a Romantic on Dating
• Sean Perron and Spencer Harmon, Letters to a Romantic on Engagement
• Christopher Watkin, Thinking through Creation: Genesis 1 and 2 as Tools of Cultural Critique
• Bill Davis, Departing in Peace: Biblical Decision-Making at the End of Life

Participants: Camden Bucey, Ryan Noha

Today, Rob and Bob commemorate the 500th anniversary Protestant Reformation with a discussion of the ongoing need for influence of the Reformation in the life of the church today. Happy Reformation Day!

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This year marks the 500^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. On Oct 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. We typically point to that event as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. It’s remarkable to think that such an insignificant event as nailing a document containing a list of propositions for an academic disputation would be remembered and celebrated five-hundred years later, but millions of Protestants around the world are commemorating the Reformation this year. Even non-religious organizations are taking an interest in the commemoration. You may have seen the film that PBS released earlier this month (September) entitled “Martin Luther: The Idea that Changed the World.” PBS observed that the Reformation was “one of the most important events in Western civilization,” one that gave birth to “an idea that continues to shape the life of every American today.” According to PBS, “the Protestant Reformation changed Western culture at its core, sparking the drive toward individualism, freedom of religion, women’s rights, separation of church and state, and even free public education. Without the Reformation, there would have been no pilgrims, no Puritans, and no America in the way we know it.” One wonders how the religious concerns of a single monk could start a movement that would eventually bring about such radical changes in Western civilization. One might wonder whether PBS has overstated the significance of the Reformation. Are they sensationalizing the Reformation in order to stimulate public interest and excitement simply to increase their viewership? To claim that the Reformation “changed Western culture at its core” and that without the Reformation there would be “no America in the way we know it” might sound a bit overhyped to some people. But in my opinion, it’s not overhyped at all. In fact, I think in some ways it trivializes the Reformation. If the greatest achievement of the Reformation was that it radically changed Western civilization and culture, then of course, it would be worth remembering for its historical relevance, but it would ultimately have no relevance for the kingdom of God. Like the American Revolution, the Civil War, or Apollo 11 landing on the moon, it would be worthy of study for its historical value but not because it concerned something of eternal significance. Whatever effect it may or may not have had on Western culture, the Reformation deserves our attention because it concerns something of infinite value and eternal significance. The Reformation deserves our attention—not because it enables us to understand the course of Western civilization and, therefore, helps us to make sense of the world in which we live—but because it points us beyond this world to the world to come. In other words, we are celebrating the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation not because of its earthly significance but because of its heavenly significance. The Reformation was not ultimately about an “idea that changed the world” but about a rediscovery of the One who Redeemed the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the gospel. The Protestant Reformation was not ultimately a sociological or cultural phenomenon but a theological one. To be sure, the Reformation of the Church was intertwined with political, social, and cultural concerns, but the Reformation was inherently a theological matter. And therefore, it should not be interpreted as a merely human event. The Protestant Reformation was a purification of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the church is not an institution of man; it’s a creation of God through the gospel. And the preservation of the church—its continued existence and its faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures—is not a work of man but of God. To be sure, it’s a work of God in which people like Martin Luther and John Calvin participated, but it’s a work of God nonetheless. So to understand the Reformation, we must begin with what God has accomplished in the Person and work of Jesus Christ in redemptive history and consider the application of that redemptive work by the agency of the Holy Spirit who uses the ordinances of the church to form us into a heavenly kingdom and bring us into a state of glory in which we will enjoy for all eternity unceasing, consummative communion and fellowship with the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Reformation was a rediscovery of the good news of our salvation in Jesus Christ. And that’s why the Reformation deserves our attention.

Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey discuss theological methodology in light of Calvin’s view of natural theology. As a starting point for the discussion, they turn to Thiago M. Silva’s article, “John Calvin and the Limits of Natural Theology,” Puritan Reformed Journal 8, 2 (2016): 33-48.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

Saving faith is the instrument by which the whole person is united to the whole Christ in the unbreakable bond of the Holy Spirit. I am not my own, confesses the believer, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Faith is not merely an activity of the mind assenting to the truth, nor merely an activity of the heart being assured of God and salvation, but an activity of the whole person. This faith, which the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts, “embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him” (Belgic Confession art. 22). In the same way faith does not embrace half a Savior, as the Belgic Confession goes on to say, so also it is not an activity of half a person. Saving faith is nothing less than the whole self embracing a whole Savior. It is a matter of the heart, in the biblical sense, as that from which proceed all expressions of life in mind, feeling, and will. This is consistent with the way Paul speaks of our union with Christ, which is by faith. He writes to the Colossians, “You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). Similarly to the Romans, he writes, “We were buried … with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). And to the Corinthians, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). Paul does not qualify as if only part of you died with Christ; he has in mind a total death. And the same is true of the new life in Christ. By faith our whole self is brought into union with the whole Christ in his death and resurrection. This holistic view of faith is at the basis of true religion, as the means of fellowship with the living God. In creation we learn that man, as the image of God, was to serve and enjoy him with his whole self in true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, that is, as his prophet, priest and king. Likewise, in God’s work of redemption, regeneration is in principle a renewal of the whole person to this once forfeited, but now regained service in Christ. True religion, then, is not something that can be relocated to certain areas of a person’s life, but is the animating principle of all of life. Our view of faith must coincide with this.

The Roman Catholic Captivity of Faith and True Religion

This view of faith was something that was thankfully recovered by the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church had reduced the full-orbed nature of faith to a mere activity of the mind assenting to revealed divine truth, and in doing so corrupted the true religion. Herman Bavinck, in his excellent essay, “Philosophy of Religion (Faith),” accurately summarizes the Roman Catholic view of faith:

It generally is the acceptance of a witness on the basis of the trustworthiness of the spokesman, and it retains this meaning also in the religious arena. It is true that an operation of the Spirit is necessary to illumine the mind and to bend the will. Still, faith is and remains an activity of the mind. It exists in the acceptance of and agreement with God’s truth as contained in Scripture and tradition, on the basis of the inerrant authority of the church (25-26).

While Roman Catholic theology is far from unified, this summary of Bavinck is consistent, for example, with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. First, for Rome faith is merely the assent of the mind. While they may speak of personal adherence and insert such language as “his whole being,” they never go beyond mere assent. For example, “By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer.'” (143). While the language, “whole being” is used, the action attributed to the “whole being” is only that of assenting. So either the whole being of man is reduced entirely to his mind or his whole being is brought in subordination to his mind. Even when speaking of Mary—in whom Rome venerates “the purest realization of faith”—the catechism only states that she “welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent.” Aquinas is also cited as saying, “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.” Second, Rome supplants the Holy Spirit with the Church as the source of faith. It is the Church, according to Rome, who teaches the believer to say both “I believe” and “We believe” (167). Furthermore, “It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith…” (168). And the Church is considered the believer’s mother because through her “we receive the life of faith” and so “she is also our teacher in the faith” (169). This view of faith severs the unity of the person, embraces rationalism, and injects a heavy dosage of impersonalism, imposing an institutional mediator between the believer and Christ, thus corrupting the true religion of fulsome fellowship with the living triune God.

The Reformation Rescue of Faith and True Religion

In response, “the Reformation,” writes Bavinck, “presented a completely different view of faith. Even though faith could properly be called knowledge, it was, as Calvin said, still more a matter of the heart than of the mind” (26). This is embodied in the great document of the Reformation, the Heidelberg Catechism. After stating in Q/A 20 that salvation is only for those who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his blessings, it expectantly asks, “What is true faith?” The answer encompasses the whole person, mind and heart, intellect and soul, knowledge and assurance. It reads, “True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation” (Q/A 21). In contrast to Roman Catholic theology, “faith thus received from the Reformers a unique, independent, religious meaning. It was distinguished essentially from the faith of which we speak in daily life, and also from historical and temporal faith, or faith in miracles. It was not just an acceptance of divine truth, but it also became the bond of the soul with Christ, the means of fellowship with the living God” (26). In this we have the restoration of true religion.

Following the Reformation we find unfortunate attempts to again sever the unity of the person with either rationalism and cold orthodoxy (reducing faith to the intellect) or pietism, mysticism and ethicism (reducing faith to feelings and morality), along with Immanuel Kant’s failed attempt to unite them once again. We will explore this, along with some of the manifold implications of the Reformation’s proper and wholesome view of faith for Christian living, preaching, evangelism, etc. in future articles. We will also look at some of the insights from Geerhardus Vos on the various words used throughout the Old and New Testaments for “faith,” so as to find biblical confirmation of the Reformed view.

Camden Bucey reviews Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition.

Participants: Camden Bucey

Chris Castaldo compares the respective doctrines of justification of the Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Roman Catholic John Henry Cardinal Newman. Castaldo is the author of Justified in Christ: The Doctrines of Peter Martyr Vermigli and John Henry Newman and Their Ecumenical Implications. In the book, he compares the doctrines of the Reformed convert from Catholicism (Vermigli) and the Catholic convert from Anglicanism (Newman), drawing conclusions that prove insightful both for ecumenical dialogue and pastoral ministry. Rev. Dr. Castaldo serves as Lead Pastor of New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois. You can visit him online at chriscastaldo.com.

Books by Chris Castaldo

• Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic
• Talking with Catholics about the Gospel
• The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants after 500 Years (co-authored with Gregg Allison)

Previous Episodes with Chris Castaldo

• Speaking with Catholics about the Gospel
• The Unfinished Reformation

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chris Castaldo, Jim Cassidy

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

In developing this doctrine, Ragusa draws upon Cornelius Van Til’s Trinitarian theology, covenant theology, and representational principle. Ragusa writes,

According to Van Til’s representational principle, for man’s will to operate and for an act of his will to be significant and meaningful it must take place within an exhaustively personal environment, that is, it must take place within the sovereign and eternal plan of the self-sufficient triune God. The absolute freedom of God does not take away or limit man’s freedom, but rather establishes it in an analogical fashion.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Dan Ragusa, Jim Cassidy

Earlier this week, we exhibited at The Gospel Coalition 2017 Conference, “No Other Gospel: Reformation 500 and Beyond” in Indianapolis. We were able to share 900 copies of our new book No Uncertain Sound with interested conference attendees. We had numerous conversations with people about confessional Reformed theology, worship, apologetics, and ecclesiology. In the few quiet moments, we picked up the microphones and spoke about our experience. In his plenary address at TGC, “The Reformed Tradition Beyond Calvin,” Ligon Duncan spoke of Johannes Oecolampadius and Dr. Diane Poythress’ work on the Reformer. In Christ the Center episode 269, we spoke with Dr Poythress about her dissertation, “Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36–37,” which is one of the only lengthy treatments of Oecolampadius in English. She has also written an excellent book about him titled, Reformer of Basel: The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius, published by Reformation Heritage Books.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Diane Poythress, Glen Clary, Jason Pickard, Jim Cassidy

This week we’re at The Gospel Coalition 2017 Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana. We’re meeting many new people and telling them about our mission to assist the Church in her call to discipleship. With a host of new listeners, I wanted to release a special welcome episode into our podcast feed and provide a short introduction to what we do here at Reformed Forum.

We’ve been podcasting since January 2008. Our flagship program, Christ the Center, has released a new episode every Friday since that first episode was released over nine years ago. We’ve just published our first book No Uncertain Sound, which plants a flag for our distinctive confessional Reformed theology. We are unabashed in promoting historic Protestantism in the tradition of the Westminster Standards and the three forms of unity: the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism. We believe this important, since we live in an age of broad and often pragmatic evangelicalism. We’re promoting something substantial and enduring.

But even beyond our confessional tradition, we specifically advance theology in the tradition of Geerhardus Vos and Cornelius Van Til. We’ve detailed all of this in our book No Uncertain Sound. We hope you pick up a copy and fall in love with this rich theology arising from a redemptive-historical hermeneutic.

At the end of the episode, we include a portion of Christ the Center episode 378 with Dr. Carl Trueman. In this episode, we speak about Dr. Trueman’s book Luther on the Christian Life, in which he paints a portrait of Martin Luther through his historical context, theological system, and approach to the Christian life. Luther is often treated in a black-and-white fashion or exclusively through his succinct theological quips and mottoes. Trueman helps us to see the practical and pastoral context in which Luther lived and ministered and thereby grants to us a better understanding of both the man and his theology.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Carl Trueman, Jim Cassidy

James Ussher (1581-1656) was one of the most influential Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century. He adroitly contended throughout his life against Roman Catholicism on various platforms, whether writing, preaching or debating. And even though he turned down an invitation to the Westminster Assembly for political reasons, he might well be considered the man who stands behind the Westminster Confession of Faith.

A Brief History

Ussher was born on January 4, 1580, in Dublin, Ireland to a distinguished family. His last name testified to this, as one relative was usher to King John. At the age of ten he was converted upon reading Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (KJV). He would eventually succeed his uncle, Henry Ussher, as Archbishop of Armagh. From early on he had a special interest in history and chronology and would soon be known as the scholar who composed a biblical chronology and dated the creation at 4004 BC. This interest of his is especially evident in his work The Annals of the World. His formal education began at the age of thirteen when he was admitted to Trinity College in Dublin. He would remain there for his entire academic career. In 1607, he received his Bachelor of Divinity and was appointed Professor of Divinity at the university where he lectured for the next 14 years. In 1613, he was made Doctor of Divinity. In 1621, he was called to the bishopric of Meath and by 1625 he was made Archbishop of Armagh, primate of the Irish church. In 1601 he had taken up an eighteen-year study of the church fathers in order to commence his battle with the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, a battle that he would wage throughout his whole life.

Ussher contra Rome

Ussher’s family included both Protestants and Roman Catholics. His grandfather was Roman Catholic and his uncle would eventually turn to Rome as well. Later, when he was on a trip to England, his own mother became a communicant of Rome. Ussher made it a regular habit of visiting England, traveling there one summer out of every three for study and to grow his library, which some have numbered around ten thousand volumes! When he returned to Ireland, however, he tried to convince his mother to return to the Protestant fold, but she resisted. Ussher would go on to dedicate much of his life to the refutation of Rome’s dogma. Interestingly, the Act of Uniformity required Roman Catholics to attend the worship services that Ussher led and preached at every Sunday.

In 1613, he penned De Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu, which “answered Rome’s query on the state of Protestantism before Luther.” In this work, he demonstrates that Christ has always had a visible church untainted by Rome’s corruptions. His most monumental piece would come in 1631, Historia de Gotteschalci, in which he sharply points out the difference between the Roman tradition and the Protestant tradition in early Ireland. He engages such topics of issue as Scripture, purgatory, grace, justification, sacraments, the mass, and the Pope’s authority. His theological acuity in this work has led some to say that it never received even a plausible answer from Rome. In 1660, his work Historia Dogmatica Controversiae … de Scriptures et Sacris Vernaculis was posthumously published. In this book he showed that the celebration of public worship in an unknown tongue (say, Latin, as the Roman Catholic church practiced at the time) was unknown from the early church up to the 7th century. He also makes the case that from early on the people of God were always exhorted to read Scripture for themselves. On top of writing, he was also a prolific speaker and debater. At the age of nineteen, he was chosen to debate with a Jesuit on the points of contention between Rome and Protestantism. The debate was organized with weekly engagements, but after the second round the Jesuit threw in the towel. Ussher, wanting to continue the debate, sent a letter in the spirit of David before Goliath:

“I Am Going Out of the World”

Ussher’s earthly service came to an end on March 21, 1656. Richard Parr preached before Ussher earlier in January of that same year. After the sermon, Ussher remarked,

For Further Study

• James Ussher, A Body of Divinity.
• Crawford Gribben, The Irish Puritans: James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church.
• Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology).
• Jonathan D. Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dordt.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), 163-179.
• You can read some of his sermons here.
• His works are also available for Logos Bible Software.

[1] Smith, Robert Worthington. “James Ussher: Biblical Chronicler.” Anglican Theological Review 41, no. 2 (April 1959): 84-94. [2] Clary, Ian Hugh. “The Irish Puritans: James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church.” American Theological Inquiry 3, no. 1 (January 15, 2010): 175-179.

On this episode, we are joined by Ryan McGraw, who speaks about the foundational role and practical significance of Trinitarian theology to John Owen. Dr. McGraw is Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Greenville, South Caroline. His article, “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology” was published in The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2. Dr. McGraw joined us on a previous episode of Christ the Center to speak about the meaning of the phrase “good and necessary consequence” in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Ryan McGraw

Cornelis P. Venema joins us to speak about his book By His Spirit and Word: How Christ Builds His Church (Reformed Fellowship, Inc.). Venema engages in an extended exposition on the doctrine of the church and its ministry as described in the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformation churches. These confessions emphasize the church’s indispensability to the salvation of believers, for the triune God’s redemptive mission is principally effected through the ministry of the church. Dr. Venema is President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Cornelis Venema

We know that on October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, igniting a continent-wide reformation of the church. But what was he thinking? Was this a novel, even revolutionary move to engage in such theological dissent? Or was there historical precedence? Furthermore, were there procedures in place that allowed for this? And who even held the authority to judge theological writings as orthodox or heretical? Drawing primarily from Amy Nelson Burnett’s article, “Academic Heresy, the Reuchlin Affair, and the Control of Theological Discourse in the Early Sixteenth Century,” I want to consider the background that paved the way for the controversy surrounding Luther’s 95 Theses.[1]

Academic Condemnation

Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) defined heresy as “a statement chosen by human opinion, contrary to holy Scripture, and pertinaciously defended.” Both parts of that definition are important. The first reveals a failing of the intellect, while the second a failing of the will. A distinction is then made between “heretical teaching” and “heretical individuals.” A person may teach or write something in error, but it was not until they refused to recant and submit to the authority of the church that they themselves were deemed a “heretic.” “Academic Condemnation” was a process aimed at heretical teaching, carried out by either the theological faculty of a university or the papal curia. “It effectively placed the determination of heresy in the hands of specialists in theology and canon law,” which became for them “a powerful mechanism for regulating academic discussion of theological questions” (40). Initially the jurisdiction of these theological faculties didn’t exceed their respective university community, but this changed in the fifteenth century with the introduction of the printing press. Burnett provides the following example of this expansion:

The Cologne theology faculty also claimed the right of book censorship, and in 1507 it denounced propositions drawn from the published work of the jurist Peter of Ravenna. At a hearing before a commission representing each of the university’s faculties, Peter submitted to the demand to abstain from teaching the questionable doctrine. Within a few months, however, he began a literary feud with the Cologne faculty (40).

This feud has been seen as the impetus for the Reuchlin Affair, in which a similar procedure was followed, but one that would spin out of control. This would in turn pave the way for the initial response to Luther. Before proceeding, however, it’s important to note that humanists had been vying against the scholastics for a voice in judging theological discourse. As we’ll see, the Reuchlin Affair would become the cause célèbre in pitting these two schools against one another.

The Reuchlin Affair

Johannes Reuchlin penned Augenspiegel (1511) in which he defended his earlier writing that opposed the confiscation of Jewish books against Johann Pfefferkorn. The Cologne theology faculty quickly denounced the book and once Reuchlin learned that some of his statements were theologically suspect, he responded with a letter in which he stressed his submission to the church and his willingness to modify his position where needed. The faculty replied with the suspect propositions, but “refused to identify more precisely what he needed to change in his book” (41). They weren’t interested in a revised Augenspiegel, but Reuchlin’s submission to their authority. The tension grew between them, and Reuchlin was eventually demanded to publish a retraction to his book. Instead, he took to a public defense of his writing and what ensued was a writing war between him and the faculty in 1512 and 1513. Burnett notes that the true significance of Reuchlin’s Defensio contra calumniatores suos Colonienses (1513) “rests on the fact that it challenged the moral, legal, and intellectual competence of the Cologne theology faculty to judge heresy” and, on a larger scale, “attacked the entire procedure followed in academic condemnation.” Furthermore, Reuchlin’s actions moved the right to judge theological discourse out of the academic sphere into the public forum, which “changed the parameters of the debate entirely” (42). The affair continued for a number of years, but the important thing to see is that the validity of “academic condemnation” was for the first time brought into serious question along with the competence of scholastic scholars to judge theological discourse. In Reuchlin’s Letters of Obscure Men, he

mocked the eagerness of theologians to label anyone who disagreed with them as heretics and portrayed [his] scholastic opponents, especially Hoogstraeten, as ignorant, vainglorious laughingstocks. Such characterizations fit only too well with Erasmus’ lampooning of theologians in his Praise of Folly, which had already provoked rebuke from the Louvain theologian Martin Dorp (45).

These claims were often well-founded as most scholastics were ignorant of Greek and Hebrew and would misrepresent statements by isolating them from their literary context. The humanists, on the other hand, excelled in these areas. Fred Hall comments on the influence of humanism on Luther, who himself had received scholastic training, and Wittenberg,

At Wittenberg (from 1513), Luther used the classics, the fathers and acclaimed language scholars, Reuchlin (Hebrew) and Erasmus (Greek). He encouraged exegetes to drink deeply from the Scriptures and to criticize the fathers and classics when they neglected the theology of the Scriptures. This principle was foundational for Wittenberg’s “New Theology,” and transformed Wittenberg into a center of biblical humanism.[2]

It is in this environment that Luther published his 95 Theses in 1517.

The Luther Affair

The Reuchlin Affair had undermined the credibility of “academic condemnation,” which was evident in the controversy that followed the publication of Luther’s 95 Theses.

Because the Wittenberg theology faculty supported Luther, denunciation would have to come from outside of Wittenberg. The archbishop of Mainz initiated this process by asking the Mainz theological faculty to evaluate the these and by forwarding them to the papal curia (46).

Just as in the Reuchlin affair, the Luther affair would proceed in two arenas: “the publicist battle in Germany and the legal process in Rome” (47). The question that had been left unanswered by the previous affair was whether a restricted group trained in scholastic theology or the learned public had the right to judge whether a statement was heretical. We can begin to see now why the teaching of Luther and the rest of the Reformers could not be contained by the theological faculties or the Roman church.

A significant and influential public audience now called into question a procedure whereby a relatively small group of academic experts had the authority to police theological discourse and to condemn propositions removed from their context without giving a more detailed rationale for their judgment. In the wake of the Reuchlin affair, charges of academic heresy leveled by scholastic theologians became an object of derision rather than something to be feared. In the second decade of the sixteenth century, theology faculties lost their moral authority to monitor academic discourse in Germany, with fateful consequences for the early Reformation (48).

The Reuchlin affair had created a conducive environment for Luther’s 95 Theses to electrify the world. For further study on Luther listen to our interview with Carl Trueman on his book Luther on the Christian Life: Cross and Freedom. Also check out our discussion with Trueman on Luther and Media.

[1] Burnett is the Paula and D. V. Varner University Professor of History at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her essay can be found in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. [2] Hall’s essay is also found in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg. These were dark, dark days; the gospel had been shackled by the superstitions and idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and consigned to her dungeon where its light was hidden from the world. But Luther’s action that day would initiate its emancipation by sparking the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rescued the gospel from Rome’s dungeon and brought it to the hilltops from where its light could again emanate as a beacon of salvation for all to see. To remember this day in the history of Christ’s church, brothers from various Reformed denominations (OPC, URCNA, RCUS, RCNZ, RPCNA) have contributed articles on each of the five solas of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. Together they form the five-fold light of the gospel that overcomes the darkness.

– Daniel Ragusa

We Are All Epistemologists

The question couldn’t be more straightforward. But despite the disarming nature of its apparent simplicity, it has proven to be one of the most challenging questions human beings have ever endeavored to answer. The answers put forward, by philosophers and poets alike, couldn’t be more varied, more contradictory, more labyrinthine in complexity.

How do you know what you think you know?

On what basis do we have any confidence that the knowledge we claim as unassailably true has any point of contact with reality? We human beings have no problem with the “unassailably true” part. That observation is as empirically verifiable as you could possibly desire. Scroll through Facebook for thirty seconds on any given day and come to the conclusion that people don’t simply take for granted the inviolable veracity of their predications! Take a walk down the street, talk to a random sampling of people about the world, about themselves, about humanity, about God. Invariably, they will repeatedly appeal to a body of knowledge, the truthfulness of which they will take utterly for granted. We all do it. But there’s a rub, isn’t there? The knowledge that we so blithely assume to be unassailably true—how do we know that it has real, vital contact with reality? It is that question, that conundrum, that has, in equal parts, both fascinated and infuriated thinking men and women from time immemorial. And for all the attempts of modern philosophy to argue to the contrary, it is a matter of deeply intuitive settledness in the human heart that truth has a universal character, i.e. that truth for me must also be truth for you, that truth is not ultimately a purely subjective construct de mente singulorum. But where does this truth come from? What validates our truth claims as possessing a vital point of contact with reality? By what standard do we then discriminate between truth and error, knowledge and falsity? These are all questions that have been taken up by philosophers under the discipline of epistemology, the study of (logos) knowledge (episteme). And appealing to our observations thus far, we can say with ease that we are all epistemologists. There is not a living, breathing man or woman (Or child! My children—five, four, and two—all readily prove this on a daily basis) for whom the definition, nature, and limits of knowledge are not of intimate concern. And more often than not, we simply bypass these questions by assuming epistemological certainty concerning the knowledge we believe we possess. But do we actually have grounds for epistemological certainty? Is epistemological certainty possible? From where does it come?! As we contemplate the most important questions of life concerning ourselves, the universe—concerning God—how do we lay our heads on our pillows at night at peace that we have real knowledge concerning reality as it really is.

A Revelational Epistemology

The doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) is theological shorthand for what might otherwise be called (and has been called) a revelational epistemology. For all of the discussion that the doctrine of sola scriptura will deservedly receive Reformation Day 2016, the goal of this brief meditation is to focus on the Scriptures as the sole ground of the believer’s epistemological certainty. And, therefore, the fulfillment of the epistemological ideal after which all humanity strives and yearns. The doctrine of sola scriptura presents the nature of our epistemic conundrum with a beautiful, but perilous, clarity (depending on how one reacts to its implications). Human beings ultimately have two choices and two choices only. We either receive the self-authenticating revelation of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the one and only key to human knowledge that comports with reality—or we remain enslaved to epistemological darkness. To illustrate, imagine a labyrinth. What is the implicit invitation of the labyrinth if not to discover the path leading to final escape? But this labyrinth is different. It promises that which it does not possess and cannot yield. So it is with every pursuit of ultimate knowledge and meaning that is not grounded in Scripture alone. All unbelieving epistemologies bid us escape a labyrinth that is, by definition, inescapable. It is inescapable because it is the finite mind trapped within itself, with no transcendent vantage point from which to even evaluate, let alone correct, its own deficiencies. But does this stop us from trying? No! For in the heart of man there is an equally inescapable notion that the possibility of escape exists. Problem being, of course, that we invariably seek this escape presupposing that our reason—fallen and finite—will lead us to freedom. And just like the old myth, every would-be philosopher believes himself to possess Ariadne’s thread and so fancies himself the long-awaited guide to lead us out of the perilous labyrinth of our epistemological conundrum. But again, with no recourse except to human reason—as fallen as it is finite—every postulated escape proves a delusion, just as the Minotaur rounds the corner and we find ourselves hemmed in on every side with our backs against the wall. What, then, is the Christian’s escape? When the darkness of our noetic condition seems to extinguish all light, what hope could there ever be? The Son of God bears testimony to the blessed way of escape. “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’” (Jn. 8:32). What is this truth about which Jesus speaks?! He further describes and defines it as the passage unfolds. Verse 37—My word. Verse 38—that which I have seen from My Father. Verse 40—the truth that I heard from My Father. Verse 43, again—My word. Verses 45 and 46, again—the truth. Verse 47—the words of God. And all this comes to a climactic pitch in John 17 when Jesus prays thus for His people—“‘Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth’” (Jn. 17:17). The Word of God is our escape. The Word of God is truth. And the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, is the One who rescues us from our epistemological darkness. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (Jn. 10:27). That is why Jesus’ voice is so precious to those who trust in Him! Because the alternative is utter darkness. The Spirit of God has illumined the eyes of our hearts to embrace the Word of God (Eph. 1:17-19). And by that same Word, the Spirit has deeply impressed upon our hearts that to follow the voice of strangers (Jn. 10:5) is to walk the path of destruction. Clinging to Christ by faith, we have that same Spirit-wrought instinct that we see exhibited by Peter—“So Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God’” (Jn. 6:67-69). All other voices will betray us. All other paths inexorably proceed only from darkness to darkness. Such is the end of every epistemological pursuit that appeals to human reason as its ultimate point of reference. In whatever language it is clothed, with whatever degree of sophistication it presents itself—it is a maze with no solution, a labyrinth of constant flux and the infinite regress of endless obfuscation, where every supposed solution plays out to yet another dead end. Either the Lord Jesus leads us out by Word and Spirit, or we remain in darkness—for it is only in His light that we see light (Ps. 36:9). Sola scriptura is the Spirit-wrought cry of the redeemed heart—“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

From the Mouth of God

Recall the striking language that Christ used in spiritual combat against the devil, “‘It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matt. 4:4). Our Savior here is speaking about the Scriptures by quoting the Scriptures speaking about the Scriptures! The quote comes, of course, from Deuteronomy chapter 8, verse 3, “… man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.” Should this not make us tremble? The inscripturated Word of God constitutes the very mouth of God by which He speaks His word and reveals His will.[1] As the Apostle Paul likewise testifies, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). And the word here translated as “inspiration” is, of course, that profound and evocative Paulinism—θεόπνευστος, God-breathed. What a striking anthropomorphism! That the Bible is Almighty God Himself—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—opening His mouth and breathing out a divine revelation perfectly accommodated to our redeemed, finite capacities.[2] One beautiful implication of this is that we ought never to separate the doctrines of inspiration and authority. They are two sides of the same coin. Why are the Scriptures authoritative? Because they proceed from the mouth of God! And what else can we call that which proceeds from the mouth of God but authoritative—and that in the most ultimate, comprehensive, and exhaustive of senses! A simple, but shattering truth. If man would know God, God must reveal Himself. And He has done so. God has opened His mouth and spoken. And this Word bears all the intrinsic authority of the divine being. Consider this quote from William Whitaker,

Scripture has for its author God Himself; from whom it first proceeded and came forth. Therefore the authority of Scripture may be proved from the Author Himself, since the authority of God Himself shines forth in it. 2 Tim. 3:16, the whole Scripture is called theopneustos.[3]

And following Whitaker, the beautiful creedal formulation of this truth from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[4]

Sola Scriptura, Spiritual Warfare, and the Voice of a Stranger

Should it surprise us that again and again throughout church history the doctrine of sola scriptura has proved a spiritual battleground? No, it shouldn’t. Point in fact, the doctrine of sola scriptura has been a spiritual battleground from the beginning. “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” From the beginning (Gen. 3:1-7; Jn. 8:44), Satan has been most eager to cast doubt upon the Word of God and thus cast doubt upon the very character of God. His is the original “voice of the stranger” (Jn. 10:5). And as Genesis chapter 3 unfolds the anatomy of temptation, what we find is that at the base of all the evil one’s temptations there is this basic goal and desire—to cause us to waver and weaken concerning the authority and the sufficiency of God’s Word. And when Adam chose to interpret reality according to the word of the serpent, over the Word of God, so fell all of humanity—descending from Adam by natural generation (Rom. 5:12-18; 1 Cor. 15:21-22)—into epistemological slavery and darkness (Jn. 8:37-47; Rom. 1:18-23; 1 Cor. 1:18-25). But when Satan comes to attack the Second Adam (Matt. 4:1-11), what happens?! When Satan seeks to tempt Christ away from the Word of God, when Satan seeks to impugn the character of God by misusing and twisting His Word—how does our Savior respond? Does He capitulate? Praise be to God—no! He stands firm. He wields the sword of the Spirit to hew down the blasphemous insinuations of the enemy. And at the very point at which Adam fell—Christ prevailed. At the very point at which we all fall, inheriting from Adam the same corruption of nature—Christ prevailed. “It is written—it is written—it is written.” It is with great pastoral wisdom, then, that the Westminster Divines speak to us about “the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world.”[5] Satan’s tactics haven’t changed. He still comes to us, appealing to the flesh and appealing to the rebellious streak that yet remains in our hearts—“Has God actually said?!” Let us be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might (Eph. 6:10). And following our Savior, being conformed to His image from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor. 3:18), let us pick up the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17)—and let us wield it to His glory. We need never be intimidated by the boasting of the world in their epistemological poverty. This divine deposit (the 66 books inspired books of the New Covenant canon) constitutes God’s sufficient and final revelation—God’s last days speech-in-Son (Heb. 1:1-2). And praise be to the Lord—it contains everything that we need to know Him, to believe in Him, to be reconciled to Him, to know His will, to please Him, and to proclaim Him to the world.

The Crux of the Matter

We cannot arrive at the crux of the matter in words more clear, perceptive, and earthy than those of Cornelius Van Til,

We cannot choose epistemologies as we choose hats. Such would be the case if it had been once for all established that the whole thing is but a matter of taste. But that exactly what has not been established. That is exactly the point in dispute.[6]

The question is not whether or not we have an epistemology. The question is what kind of epistemology do we have and whether that epistemology leads us to the green pastures and still waters of God’s self-authenticating Word, or to yet another dead end in the serpentine labyrinth of unbelief. The doctrine of sola scriptura is the clarion call of the divine revelation that the Scriptures alone constitute the only ground by which humanity might come to a true knowledge of itself, of the universe, and of our God.

We cannot do without the Scriptures; having them we need no other guide. We need this light to light our pathway; having it we may well dispense with any other. Are we making it the light to lighten our feet? Are we following it whithersoever it leads? Are we prepared to test all religious truth by it, while it is tested by none? Are we prepared to stand by it in all things on the principle that it is God’s Word and God will be true though every man be a liar?[7]

From Soli Deo Gloria to Sola Scriptura and Back Again

The series of articles on the five solas began with the end and now ends with the beginning. If the omega point of Reformed theology is soli Deo gloria, then the alpha point is sola scriptura. And as we bring this series to an end, let’s connect the dots and work now from the alpha back to the omega. After all, where does the Bible ultimately lead us? Does this God-breathed Book have a central message? Yes, it does. As the Son of God testifies, “‘You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.’” The Scriptures are not themselves eternal life, as though black-and-white on a page could magically confer the grace of God. In the power of the Spirit, the Word of Christ leads us to the Word Christ.[8] As Geerhardus Vos wrote concerning the relationship between the Bible’s historical record and the Bible’s exalted Redeemer, “The Person is immanent in the facts, and the facts are the revelation of the Person.”[9] The Bible is a redemptive book, the product of God’s desire to save. The epistemological and the soteriological are bound together in the warm embrace of God’s redemptive purposes for humanity in and through Jesus Christ. And that warm Christological embrace cannot but propel the church toward the doxological. When, in the power of the Spirit, we embrace by faith (sola fide) the testimony of the Scriptures (sola scriptura)—we are forever united to the Lord (solus Christos). And in Him what do we find but grace upon grace (sola gratia)? And beholding Him with unveiled face (2 Cor. 3:18) what do we see? His Glory. And as we delight and rejoice in the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6)—what is our cry?

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?’ ‘Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?’ For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria.

For Further Study

• Listen to our discussion with Glen Clary on Zwingli, Sola Scriptura, and the Reformation of Christian Worship. You may also find his article “Ulrich Zwingli and the Swiss Anabaptists: Sola Scriptura and the Reformation of Christian Worship” in volume 6 of the Confessional Presbyterian Journal. Camden Bucey has also written on Zwingli’s view.
• See John Murray, “Reformation” and “The Crux of the Reformation” in volume 1 of Collected Writings of John Murray. In the first address he proposes and develops that “the Reformation was the reassertion of the whole counsel of God, to the refutation of error and display of the truth. Sola gratia and sola scriptura were its fundamental principles.”
• Cornelis Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology and his chapter on Scripture in An Introduction to Systematic Theology.
• Sinclair Ferguson, From the Mouth of God.
• Thy Word is Still Truth: Essential Writings on the Doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to Today.
• There are many helpful essays in the recent volume edited by D. A. Carson, The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures.
• Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2: Holy Scripture.

[1] Cf. the recently published and wonderful book by Sinclair Ferguson, From the Mouth of God. [2] Cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16. The Trinitarian foundations of sola scriptura (though space does not permit us to follow that thread) are radiant—Father, Son, and Spirit each intimately involved in the divine revelation (Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa). Cf. also the penetrating article by Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, “Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor. 2:6-16.” [3] William Whitaker (1548-1595), Disputations, 3.3. Again, theopneustos is Greek for “God-breathed.” [4] WCF I.4. [5] WCF I.1. [6] Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology, xiv. [7] B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 2, 570-71. [8] Consider the following epistemological insight from Edward Calamy, “There are two great Gifts that God hath given to His people: The Word Christ and the Word of Christ. Both are unspeakably great; but the first will do us no good without the second” (The Godly Man’s Ark, 7^th ed. [1672], 55). [9] Geerhardus Vos, “Christian Faith and the Truthfulness of Bible History,” The Princeton Theological Review [1906] 4:289-305.

We speak with Gregg Allison and Chris Castaldo about their excellent book The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants after 500 Years (Zondervan, 2016). Rev. Dr. Allison is Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Rev. Dr. Castaldo serves as Lead Pastor of New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois. We are driven to ask, Why are we accepted by God? In the final analysis, it must be Christ’s person and work and his imputed righteousness to sinners. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. It depends solely on Christ and not anything we do.

Episodes of Christ the Center

• Roman Catholic Theology and Practice with Gregg Allison
• Speaking with Catholics about the Gospel with Chris Castaldo

Books by Allison and Castaldo

• Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment
• Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine
• Castaldo, Talking with Catholics about the Gospel
• Castaldo, Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic

Participants: Adam York, Camden Bucey, Chris Castaldo, Gregg Allison, Jeff Waddington

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg. These were dark, dark days; the gospel had been shackled by the superstitions and idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and consigned to her dungeon where its light was hidden from the world. But Luther’s action that day would initiate its emancipation by sparking the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rescued the gospel from Rome’s dungeon and brought it to the hilltops from where its light could again emanate as a beacon of salvation for all to see. To remember this day in the history of Christ’s church, brothers from various Reformed denominations have contributed articles on each of the five solas of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. Together they form the five-fold light of the gospel that overcomes the darkness.

– Daniel Ragusa

Rooting for the Underdog; Longing for a Champion

There are many who believe the Bible to be a boring book. Even Christians sometimes fall into the trap of treating its pages as a mere tool to extract and teach the propositions of orthodoxy. But the Bible is so much more than that! It is quite literally “inspired,” that is, breathed out by our sovereign and holy God into history. As such it reflects his character and is marked by a high literary quality with compelling narratives, moving poetry and tightly reasoned arguments, all of which are brought together into one story of creation, fall, redemption and consummation. Geerhardus Vos puts it this way, “The Bible is not a dogmatic handbook, but a historical book full of dramatic interest.” Our world seems addicted to fantasy literature at present. The story of an underwhelming hero overcoming all odds resonates with the human psyche in a way that omnipotence doesn’t. I was recently reminded when watching “Batman vs Superman” of the distrust so many of us naturally have for those who hold almighty power. We prefer the underdog. It makes for a better story. Well for those who like literature, the Bible far outstrips any other work in its magnificence. It is particularly striking due to the fact that unlike every other fantastical narrative, it is the truth. We read of the formation of the earth; mountains raised and rivers cut, flowers blooming and trees bearing fruit in their seasons. A new race is formed out of dust. We read of talking animals; heroes and villains; stories of love, betrayal, sacrifice and murder; immense building programs and wealth; city-building which far outstrips Minecraft. The protagonists contend with dragons, demons and the Devil himself. Faith is tested and purified; the sick are healed; the lame walk; people are raised from the dead; someone even gets taken up into heaven on a chariot! Young men and women grow in knowledge, understanding and wisdom, and perform heroic acts in the service of their King and God. Nations rise and fall, and the good guy wins in the end, saving his people from destruction. All his enemies are placed under his feet and eternal peace is won. Now if this is the fabric of our real history, it’s no wonder that humanity is drawn to the underdog; that they crave the destruction of evil; that they realise their need for a champion to fight their battles for them. The Marvel universe, DC Comics and the entire Star Wars franchise (not to mention many more!) are built around this premise. But there is a problem with earthly heroes. Both superheroes and supervillains war with their own nature; in every villain there is a bit of good and in every hero there is a bit of evil. Think of Harvey Dent (before he became Two-Face), the pride of Iron-man, the rage of the Hulk, the self-doubt of Gideon, the womanizing of Solomon. As these broken champions have shown, the Bible’s resounding lesson is that they aren’t ultimately capable. Although they are simply a result of the human imagination, the vast array of heroes in the comic book universe could easily be slipped into the back of the book of Judges as additional short term solutions which leave increasingly bitter tastes in the mouth. Only a perfected hero is able to save an imperfect people (read the letter to the Hebrews); only someone who is incorruptible is capable of being the shining light for humanity. And to add to the problem, it is generally suspected that a hero who triumphs in the traditional methods isn’t going to achieve the desired ends. They might be perfect, but nobody else is. Another villain will always rise up again to replace the previous one—the weak peasants will never truly gain the strength they need to fight for themselves, and evil and good will continue their perpetual war.

Christ, Our Only Champion

So who is the champion we need? Solus Christus (“by Christ alone”)!—that is, none other than the Son of God come to earth. Born of a virgin; fully God and fully man; like us in every way but without sin; sympathetic to our weaknesses but never succumbing to them. Someone who does not only defeat his enemies, but saves them from themselves. Someone who secures our inheritance in his own strength and restores our relationship with the One who we have wronged (John 14:6). Salvation can be achieved through no one else than Christ Jesus our Lord (Acts 4:12). The plot of Scripture is thick, but not dense; it is complicated, but also simple. Someone once quipped that it “is a stream in which the elephant may swim and the lamb may wade.” Everything in Scripture tells us about Christ in one way or another—many helpful books have been written to help us see this. All the heroes in the Old Testament with their shortcomings and failures point forward to the need for a greater champion. All of them were insufficient to provide more than a brief interlude. Death, pain and betrayal return to God’s people promptly upon their death or even during their lifetime.

David and Goliath

Perhaps one of the most significant examples we see of this is in the story of David and Goliath. For forty days Goliath came and defied the ranks of Israel. He called for a man that they might fight together. Yet ironically, not one of the Israelites would stand up and present themselves as a man, until David. This young, nameless shepherd takes the field alone against the enemy of God’s people and blasphemer of God (1 Sam. 17). As he picks up five smooth stones and walks towards a hulking goliath of a man, his people stand quivering on the side-line. The earthly king they craved is, like them, also hiding from the danger. But as powerful as the enemy champion appears to be, in the narrative he is ironically considered to be less than a man. David turns Goliath’s scornful challenge (“send me a man!”) on its head. He compares the Philistine to animals, saying to Saul, “Your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them” (17:36). In God’s sovereignty, Goliath draws even more attention to this in the narrative: “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” (17:43). The contest commences and Goliath is quickly slain by David with a single stone so “that all this assembly [and all future readers] may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear” (17:47). Now there have been some powerful sermons from this text recently. In contrast to many popular preachers who double-dare their listeners to be a David, the emphasis of the passage is that you are a member of God’s people cowering on the side-line. You need a champion to save you; you have proven unable to contribute at all to your salvation.

Christ, A Greater Champion than David

But there is also another powerful truth about this story, which the light of New Testament revelation illumines for us. Paul writes, “You were alienated from God and were enemies in your mind because of your evil behavior” (Col. 1:21 NKJV). And yet, “while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). But Christ is not a champion like David. God does not win by sword and spear, nor does he destroy all his enemies. Instead, our true Champion (not the one we chose but the One who chose us) took us, his enemies, and adopted us into his family; we who were the enemies of God are now heirs according to the promise. Interestingly, when Jesus came to earth, people continually looked down on him, emphasizing his unlikely beginnings. Nathaniel considered him an unlikely candidate, saying, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). In his hometown he was an outcast—in response Jesus noted that “a prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his household” (Matt. 13:57). Even John the Baptist questioned whether he was truly the long promised hero (Luke 7:18-20). And Israel had expectations of a messianic military general who would drive away the Romans. But Christ was a champion of a different sort. He rode into the capital city on a donkey (John 12:12-15); he won the battle as a lamb led to be slaughtered (Rev. 5:5-10). He wasn’t going to destroy the meager militaries of man, but he came to defeat the spiritual superpowers of sin, sickness, and Satan. Christ won his victory not with a sword or a spear or a sling; rather, he won by laying down his life on a cross and shedding his blood for those whom his Father had given to him. Even though Goliath and the Philistines were routed, they came back later. Even though David proved to be a better king than Saul, he participated in polygamy, adultery, murder, cowardice and he failed to discipline his children. His failures led once again to the collapse and exile of his people.

Conclusion

In God’s sovereign plan, the historical truths of Scripture bear out the striking truth of the gospel: the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords has come and he has won the most important victory. The kingdom of Jesus will never fall because of an imperfect king. No other champion is capable of providing such everlasting peace. In Christ alone do we gain salvation, for Christ alone is the champion of his people and there is no other. Christ alone can be trusted to maintain this victory and provide a happily ever after in union and communion with the Triune God.

For Further Study

• Lane Tipton, “Christology in Colossians 1:15-20 and Hebrews 1:1-4: An Exercise in Biblio-Systematic Theology” in Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church. Also listen to his address from our 2016 Theology Conference on Colossians 1:15, as well as the Sunday school class he led on Hebrews 1:1-4.
• On the all-encompassing and sufficient nature of the knowledge of Jesus Christ see Daniel Ragusa’s article, “Knowing Nothing Except Jesus Christ (Part 1): Reductionistic or Cosmic?”
• Sinclair Ferguson, In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life.
• Jonathan Edwards’ sermon “The Excellency of Christ.”
• Rod Rosenbladt, Christ Alone.
• As solus Christus is challenged by the sacramental system of Rome see Martin Luther’s treatise The Babylonian Captivity of the Church and book IV of John Calvin’s Institutes.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg. These were dark, dark days; the gospel had been shackled by the superstitions and idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and consigned to her dungeon where its light was hidden from the world. But Luther’s action that day would initiate its emancipation by sparking the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rescued the gospel from Rome’s dungeon and brought it to the hilltops from where its light could again emanate as a beacon of salvation for all to see. To remember this day in the history of Christ’s church, brothers from various Reformed denominations have contributed articles on each of the five solas of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. Together they form the five-fold light of the gospel that overcomes the darkness.

– Daniel Ragusa

Introduction

Christians the world around believe in salvation by grace. In fact, many on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic divide believe that salvation is by grace alone. The Lutheran-Catholic ecumenical document, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, attests to this in paragraph 15: “Together we confess: By grace alone [emphasis mine], in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.” Here we have what seems to be a definite statement by both Lutherans and Catholics that salvation is by grace alone. Does this mean that the Reformers were wrong to assert sola gratia or “grace alone”? What does “grace alone” mean anyway? What was the issue at stake? In order for us to understand “grace alone,” we need to revisit a debate that began in ancient times between Augustine and Pelagius and continues to this day between Augustine’s defenders and his critics. This look at “grace alone,” then, will be a historical overview not a biblical one, though I hope to intersperse biblical thought throughout. Since this debate began with Augustine and Pelagius, I will spend most of my time with them.

Augustine and Pelagius

The debate between Augustine and Pelagius was over the nature of the fall of man, of God’s grace, and of predestination. Pelagius taught that Adam’s fall into sin affected him only, thus he denied that men were fundamentally corrupt and sinful. Instead he taught that man is basically good, but can become sinful by means of imitation or immoral choices. Grace, therefore, was not necessary, but only auxiliary. It was there to help, but man could be righteous apart from it. Furthermore, Pelagius had a severe distaste for Augustine’s teaching on predestination, arguing that it made preaching useless. If man could not do what God willed, then there was no point in God commanding anything. And if God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation, then God will save regardless of whether man chooses for good or not. Predestination, he thought, amounted to a license to sin. Augustine did not always hold to the view of sovereign grace and predestination. He mentions in his Retractions that before he became a Bishop, he taught that man’s faith came first and God’s grace was a response to that faith. He later came to teach sovereign grace after a fuller consideration of the Apostle Paul’s teaching, who said, “And what do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and of this statement by Cyprian: “We must boast over nothing since we have nothing of our own.” Once he understood what the Apostle Paul said concerning man’s inability and God’s sovereign grace, Augustine taught that, since the fall, man is completely incapable of doing any good that would merit anything from God. Adam and Eve were capable of being good and righteousness in their original state, but when they fell, they became guilty and thoroughly corrupted themselves, and not only themselves, but their guilt and corruption fell upon the whole human race. Augustine based this teaching upon Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Since man is thoroughly corrupt, he cannot do anything that would merit God’s grace. Moreover, man cannot even cooperate with God’s grace in any way. God’s grace must precede every salvific act for and in man. If man has faith in Christ, it is because God graciously enabled him to do so. Faith does not precede God’s grace, as the Pelagians taught; rather, as the Apostle Paul taught, “it is a gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Augustine argued, based upon Philippians 1:29, that man was not given grace to have more faith, but simply to have faith. This verse, as well as Ephesians 2:8, was proof for him that faith does not precede God’s gift of grace. But as to why some believe and others do not, Augustine taught, based upon Ephesians 1 and Romans 9, that it is because God predestines some to believe unto eternal life and others to remain in their sin and unbelief. The grace of God precedes man’s faith from all eternity, yet His grace prepares man’s will and enables him to believe in time. More accurately, he said, “Predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is its actual bestowal.” The Triune God works from all eternity to bring about in time the salvation of man, as 1 Peter 1:3 states, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Augustine did not only see this idea of predestination in the Apostle Paul’s teachings, but also in the teachings of Jesus Christ. He turned to John 6 and saw the same view of the priority of grace as in Paul. Jesus clearly taught that if a person is to come in faith to Christ, it is necessary for God to move him by His grace. “All that the Father gives me,” Jesus said, “will come to me” (6:37), and “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44). This is very similar to Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 11:25-30, where He gives thanks to the Father for revealing to babes what He hid from the wise. He says further in v. 27, “No one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” The difference here from John 6 is that it is the Son revealing sovereign grace as well as the Father. Augustine clearly taught that predestination was not based upon God’s foreknowledge of faith or human worthiness. It is a predestination based solely upon God’s gracious disposition. He wrote, “If one examines and asks why anyone is worthy, there are not lacking those who say that it is due to the human will. But we say that it is due to God’s grace or predestination.” There were those who were (and still are!) troubled by this teaching. Why didn’t God predestine all unto everlasting life? Augustine left this mystery to God, but he wrote, “But why is it not given to all ought not to disturb a believer who believes that because of the one all have entered into condemnation, which is undoubtedly most just, and that there would be no just grounds for blaming God even if no one were set free from it. From this we are shown that it is a great grace that many are set free and recognize what they deserved in those who are not set free.” Augustine also echoes the Apostle Paul’s sentiment in Romans 9:20, “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” It is God’s prerogative to show mercy to whomever He will have mercy and compassion to whomever He will have compassion (Rom. 9:15). It is important to remember that Augustine did not teach that man’s will is violated by God’s grace. Post-fall man is corrupt and cannot do any meritorious good. Nevertheless, he sins of his own will. God does not force him to sin. So, too, those who believe are not forced to believe. When Jesus said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me,” he did not mean that they came grudgingly. God works in them so that they willingly believe and come to Christ with thankful hearts. Even though Augustine called faith a gift, he taught that man’s faith was his own. Augustine never denied that man possessed a will; he only taught that his will was corrupt and needed God’s grace to choose for the good. This teaching, said Augustine, brought glory to where it is due—to God alone. Those who taught that faith preceded God’s grace gave glory to man. He wrote, “Not wanting, then, to resist these very clear testimonies [from Rom. 12:3 and Eph. 6:23] and yet wanting to have his believing from himself, a person makes a deal, as it were, with God and claims for himself a part of his faith and leaves a part for God. And what is more presumptuous, he claims the first part for himself and gives the second part to God, and in that work he says belongs to both, he puts himself first and God second.”

Semi-Pelagianism

Pelagianism was condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418, which was later upheld by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Yet, despite this condemnation, there were still those who continued to be troubled by Augustine’s view. Men such as John Cassian and Vincent of Lerins sought a middle way between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Their view came to be known in the sixteenth century as “semi-Pelagianism,” though disciples of Augustine saw their view as “the remnants of the Pelagian heresy.” They agreed with Augustine that Adam’s fall affected the entire race, but they did not teach a thorough corruption. They taught that there remained enough good in man to respond to God’s call to faith and repentance. In their view, faith still preceded God’s offer of grace, yet, they argued against Pelagius, God’s grace was still necessary to salvation; a person cannot be righteous without it. They taught that man cooperated with God’s grace, that he could resist and reject God’s grace, and that he could even fall away from God’s grace. These notions were all rejected by Augustine. Any cooperation, he taught, was because God enabled that cooperation by grace, and this grace never failed in its application. Here he was echoing the Apostle Paul who said, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13), and “He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). The second Council of Orange in 529 condemned semi-Pelagianism and upheld Augustinianism. Canon 20 sums up well both the necessity and the priority of grace: “That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.” The Council of Orange, however, was not an ecumenical council, so its canons were never considered to be the universal teachings of the church, even though it claimed catholicity to its teachings. This debate, therefore, continued through the Medieval period, most notably in the ninth century between Gottschalk, an Augustinian, and Hincmar, a semi-Pelagian. Gottschalk was not alone in his day in affirming all the points of Augustine’s view of grace, but he was nevertheless attacked. And because of his views he was whipped, defrocked, forced to burn his books, and imprisoned in a monastery until his death around 868. This is indicative of how the tide rose in favor of semi-Pelagianism in the church. Still, Augustine’s view of grace and predestination remained in favor by several Medieval theologians, such as Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas Bradwardine.

The Reformation

As we can see, the Reformation did not begin the debate, but merely carried on the debate. The early Reformers, nearly to a man (at least those who ended up breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church) sided with Augustine on the nature of the fall, grace, and predestination. They agreed that man was thoroughly corrupt and unable to do anything that merited God’s favor and that God’s grace was sovereign and objectively preceded every salvific act in man. The Roman Catholic Church, however, decided in favor of semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Trent, as it does to this day. John Calvin, in particular, was an adept student of Augustine. He taught that Adam’s fall into sin brought guilt and corruption upon the whole human race. Thus, since the fall man is not capable of any saving good. In fact, he said, according to the Apostle Paul, only damnable things are produced from man’s nature. Calvin cites Romans 3:10-18 which concludes that “there is none who does good, no, not one.” It is because of his corruption that man cannot seek salvation in himself but must look entirely elsewhere. He cannot come to any saving knowledge of God except through faith in Christ. He cannot justify or sanctify himself apart from any union with Christ. All of this is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who works faith in believers’ hearts and unites them to Christ from whom they receive the blessings of salvation, especially justification and sanctification. But this would never have occurred unless God first predestined them to salvation. Thus Calvin could say in his commentary on Ephesians, “The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, — the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world.” Calvin taught, as Augustine did, that God’s sovereign grace did not violate man’s will, but made him willing and able to receive the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. The faith that God granted was man’s own, but God worked it in him by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He taught, too, that God’s election was not based upon a foreknowledge of man’s faith or merit, but based solely upon God’s grace. This Augustinian and Calvinistic teaching of man’s corruption and God’s sovereign grace was codified in every Reformed confession. And Reformed churches today continue to confess, as the Belgic Confession does, “We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves” (Art. 16). In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, this debate was revived within the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, this time in the form of the teachings of James Arminius. After his death in 1609, his disciples drew up five articles known as the articles of Remonstrance. They took issue with Belgic Confession’s view of election and grace. They instead taught that 1) God’s election was based upon a foreseen faith, 2) Christ died for all men, but only those who believe receive forgiveness of sins and redemption, 3) unregenerate man is not utterly dead in sin and has some power to choose what pleases God, 4) man can resist God’s grace, and 5) saved man can fall away from grace. These teachings were all condemned by the Synod of Dort in 1618/1619. The Synod, however, affirmed that God’s election unto faith and everlasting life was based solely upon God’s grace and that reprobation is God justly leaving the non-elect in their sin and obstinacy. It also affirmed that, though Christ’s death was sufficient enough to redeem all of mankind (Canons of Dort II.3), yet because of God’s decree, it was effectively applied only to the elect. The Synod also affirmed that man was thoroughly corrupt and incapable of any act that was pleasing to God. Because of this, man’s conversion is a gracious act of God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. At no point does man cooperate with his own conversion. And rather than being a grace that man resists, this work renews his will so that he desires to be converted and believe in Christ. Finally, the Synod affirmed that saved man will not fall away from grace. God’s grace is able to save to the full, and there is no one who can snatch a believer out of God’s hand. These teachings were later rearranged and became known as the “The Five Points of Calvinism,” often seen in the acronym “TULIP” or total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. It should be noted, however, that this is not the sum of John Calvin’s teaching, but merely a part.

The Modern Period

The debate that began with Augustine and Pelagius and was carried through the Medieval and Reformation periods continues to this day. In the eighteenth century in America, Jonathan Edwards carried on this debate with the Arminians of New England in his famous book popularly titled, Freedom of the Will. The issue at stake for Edwards was not so much a proper view of man in his fallen and corrupt state, but a proper view of God and of His glorious grace. Edwards understood Calvinism to be biblical; anything less promoted a view that did not give God the glory due His name. Edwards wrote in his sermon, “God Glorified in Man’s Dependence,” “Let us be exhorted to exalt God alone, and ascribe to him all the glory of redemption. Let us endeavor to obtain, and to increase in, a sensibleness of our great dependence on God, to have our eye on him alone, to mortify a self-dependent, and self-righteous disposition. Man is naturally exceeding prone to be exalting himself, and depending on his own power or goodness, as though he were he from whom he must expect happiness, and to have respect to enjoyments alien from God and his Spirit, as those in which happiness is to be found.” The debate continues today. There are still those who side more or less with Augustine and the Reformation or with Pelagius, semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism. Books continue to be written defending Augustinianism or semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism or Arminianism. Reformed believers, however, continue to beat the drum of “grace alone.” Why do we do this? It is because views of grace, whether Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism, that fall short of the Augustinian (and, we would insist, biblical) standard, cannot be said to give God’s grace its proper due. In other words, it is because we also hold to that other sola of the Reformation, soli Deo gloria, “Glory to God Alone.”

Conclusion

In sum, the watch-word “grace alone” has to do with how we understand man’s fall into sin, God’s gracious recovery, and predestination. Pelagius denied that man was corrupt. He had the ability to be righteous and do meritorious works. Therefore, grace was not necessary to man’s salvation, but only as an aid when needed. The semi-Pelagians saw grace as necessary, but man was not completely corrupt. He retained some spiritual abilities, thus he was able to cooperate with God’s grace. Predestination was downplayed as an inhibitor to preaching and Christian morality. The Roman Catholic Church today still holds this view, but is careful to note that man cannot of his own strictly merit anything from God. It is in this way that Catholics can affirm “grace alone” without denying man’s cooperation with grace. Arminians, too, affirm the necessity of grace, but, like the semi-Pelagians, end up teaching that man cooperates in some way with this grace. Only the Augustinian and Reformed view teaches that salvation from start to finish is all of God’s grace, never of man’s work lest anyone should boast. “Grace alone” is a safeguard against boasting and ensures that we truly give glory to God alone.

For Further Study

• Saint Augustine, “The Predestination of the Saints” and “The Gift of Perseverance” in Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism. Translated by Roland Teske. Edited by Boniface Ramsey. New City Press, 2011.
• John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John McNeill. Westminster Press, 1960.
• The Canons of Dort. See Cornelis Venema’s exposition in But for the Grace of God.
• Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace. Baker Books, 2011.
• Alexander Y. Hwang, Brian J. Matz, and Augustine Casiday, Eds. Grace for Grace: The Debates After Augustine and Pelagius. Catholic University of America Press, 2014.
• Matthew Levering, The Theology of Augustine. Baker Academic, 2013, pp. 71-87.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg. These were dark, dark days; the gospel had been shackled by the superstitions and idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and consigned to her dungeon where its light was hidden from the world. But Luther’s action that day would initiate its emancipation by sparking the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rescued the gospel from Rome’s dungeon and brought it to the hilltops from where its light could again emanate as a beacon of salvation for all to see. To remember this day in the history of Christ’s church, brothers from various Reformed denominations have contributed articles on each of the five solas of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. Together they form the five-fold light of the gospel that overcomes the darkness.

A Matter of Eternal Weight

Sola fide (“by faith alone”) is the Reformation’s most notorious doctrine and resides at the core of all Protestant identity. Of course it would be a reductionism to say the Reformers were only concerned with justification by faith alone; nonetheless, it was, in the words of Luther, articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (“the article by which the church stands and falls”). It was here the true church fought the good fight of faith, many even unto martyrdom. The consequence of compromise was not negligible, but carried in its wake the very forfeiture of the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). It was not merely a matter of life and death, but of eternal life and eternal death as it had a direct impact on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Justification by Faith Alone

The Westminster Larger Catechism defines justification as “an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone” (70). In a more succinct fashion, Bavinck defines it as “that gracious judicial act of God by which he acquits humans of all the guilt and punishment of sin and confers on them the right to eternal life.” Paul states the matter clearly in Galatians 2:9ff that “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Any doctrine of salvation that undermines sola fide by requiring any kind or amount of merit that is not supplied by Christ, must be considered (in the full sense Paul meant it in Philippians 3:8) σκύβαλον—”rubbish” is an understatement. Why must we do this? In order that we may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (Phil. 3:8-9). Calvin compared faith to an “empty vase” that is filled with and only with the righteousness of Christ. Luther said faith “clasps Christ as a ring clasps its jewel.” And by faith we sing, “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” With these pictures before us, a twin truth emerges. First, by faith we believe that we are truly sinners incapable of saving ourselves, devoid of any work that could contribute to our righteous standing before God. Second, by faith we believe that out of grace God justifies us for Christ’s sake, which brings us to glory in the fullness and wholeness of our Savior whose perfect righteousness has been freely and graciously imputed to us apart from works. Luther would speak of this righteousness of Christ by which sinners are justified as an “alien” righteousness—it is a righteousness not our own. Bavinck summarizes,

Luther’s great discovery about the “righteousness of God” was that it did not apply to God’s righteousness in himself but rather to the righteousness applied to believers through faith in Christ. God’s righteousness does not condemn us but justifies us. We are clothed in Christ’s righteousness. We are not justified by good works, but for good works, by grace. Faith thus believes that we are sinners and that for Christ’s sake we are justified. God’s declaration of righteousness is not a mere sentence God pronounces to himself but brings with it the act of making us righteous in Christ.

The Belgic Confession on Sola Fide: A Whole Savior

The Belgic Confession was forged in the fires of the Reformation primarily by Guido de Brès in early 1561. The Synod of Dort (1618-19) would later adopt the confession as one of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches.[1] Article 22 (“Our Justification through Faith in Jesus Christ”) opens with a clear explanation of the source and content of faith, both of which serve the glory of God (soli Deo gloria). Its source is the Holy Spirit who “kindles in our hearts an upright faith.” While it is the believer who believes (neither the Spirit nor Christ believes for us), faith is nevertheless the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:9). Faith is not a personal achievement, but the end of all boasting before God. This faith then “embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides him.” With Calvin the confession is clear that “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and is of no value to us.” Because faith embraces Jesus Christ, the question regarding salvation is never, “Is my faith sufficient?” (looking inward to the instrument), but “Is my Savior sufficient? (looking outward to the object). To an overwhelming degree, Christ answers Yes with the fullness of his merits, which he obtained in his life, death and resurrection. Faith does not embrace an abstract, bear or irrelevant Christ, but a Christ who is, in the words of Calvin, “clothed with his gospel” (Institutes, 3.2.6). To look to supplement the merits of Christ in any way is to say that “all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ.” But by sola fide we say that “those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him.” He is not “half a Savior,” but a whole Savior.

Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins. (Belgic Confession 22)

Sola Fide and the Chief End of Man

Sola fide not only accents the glory of God in salvation, but also affords us assurance of right standing before God in order that we may enjoy him.

Certainly there can be no peace of mind and conscience, no joy in one’s heart, no buoyant moral activity, or a blessed life and death, before the guilt of sin is removed, all fear of punishment has been completely eradicated, and the certainty of eternal life in communion with God fills one’s consciousness with its consolation and power. (Bavinck)

The Belgic Confession puts it this way in article 23:

We always hold fast this foundation, ascribing all the glory to God, humbling ourselves before Him, and acknowledging ourselves to be such as we really are, without presuming to trust in any thing in ourselves, or in any merit of ours, relying and resting upon the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours when we believe in Him. This is sufficient to cover all our iniquities, and to give us confidence in approaching God; freeing the conscience of fear, terror, and dread…

We can say then that sola fide complements the chief end of man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever. If justification is by faith alone, then God is to be maximally glorified in our salvation and we are to enjoy the wholeness of our Savior in whom we find eternal life.

For Further Study

• Cornelis Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ.
• Lane Tipton, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards Revisited: Union with Christ and Justification Sola Fide.” Also listen to our interview with him on it.
• There are many helpful articles in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification.
• P. Y. De Jong’s exposition of articles 22 and 23 of the Belgic Confession in The Church’s Witness to the World.
• Anthony Hoekema’s chapter on justification in Saved by Grace.

[1] For more on the fascinating history of the Belgic Confession see Nicolaas H. Gootjes’ The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources. See also the introduction of Daniel Hyde’s helpful exposition of the confession, With Heart and Mouth.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg. These were dark, dark days; the gospel had been shackled by the superstitions and idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and consigned to her dungeon where its light was hidden from the world. But Luther’s action that day would initiate its emancipation by sparking the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rescued the gospel from Rome’s dungeon and brought it to the hilltops from where its light could again emanate as a beacon of salvation for all to see. To remember this day in the history of Christ’s church, brothers from various Reformed denominations have contributed articles on each of the five solas of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. Together they form the five-fold light of the gospel that overcomes the darkness.

– Daniel Ragusa

Beginning with the End in Mind

Soli Deo gloria (“to God alone be glory”) is the natural outcome of the preceding four solas that characterize the biblical and Reformed doctrine of salvation. Psalm 3:8 indicates that salvation belongs to the Lord. That primary claim is elaborated by specifying that only God’s word tells us the true doctrine of salvation (sola Scriptura); that only Christ accomplished all that was necessary for salvation (solus Christus); that this salvation is bestowed merely by God’s free grace (sola gratia); and is received by no other instrument than the empty hand of faith (sola fide). If in this comprehensive sense salvation is exclusively of the Lord, it follows that the praise of salvation is likewise due to him alone. Geerhardus Vos noted in his essay, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” that the root idea of Reformed theology that unlocked the rich treasuries of Scripture was the preeminence of God’s glory. Herein is what distinguished the Reformed tradition: it began not with man, but with God. Vos writes, “God does not exist because of man, but man because of God. This is what is written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology” (242). So we begin our study of the five solas with the end in mind, beginning with God purposing to glorify himself in the salvation of sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to Scripture alone.

Romans 11

This soteriological accent leading to doxology is seen in multiple places in Scripture. One clear example is Romans 11. After establishing the principle that election is by grace with works excluded from consideration (11:5–6), Paul goes on to draw the unexpected conclusion that God consigned all, both Jew and Gentile, to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (11:32). This glorious conclusion was so surprising that Paul breaks into praise of God’s unsearchable wisdom and inscrutable ways (11:33-35). In finalizing his paean to the surprisingly saving God, Paul says: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (11:36). That is the point to which the rich and textured depths of Paul’s soteriology leads, an outburst of acclamation of the God of salvation. That same attitude underlies the practical exhortations which begin in the next verse (12:1). Those who have been astonished by God’s plan of salvation and thus motivated to ascribe glory to him are properly situated to yield their bodies to him as living sacrifices, to render all proper obedience to human authority as instituted by God, and to live in peace with their brothers in the midst of imperfection and disagreement.

1 Timothy 1 and 6

Paul shows a similar movement of thought in one of the classic passages relating to his own experience of salvation. In 1 Timothy 1:12-17, he thanks Christ Jesus for transforming him from a blasphemer and persecutor into a faithful minister. This was due to the overflowing grace of our Lord. The heart of Paul’s confession of salvation is the trustworthy saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. That included even such a prime sinner as Paul himself, who was saved as a pattern or example. Given that the Lord saved Paul, there is no reason to doubt that he can also save anyone who believes. This recollection of grace shown to him, and extended to others, again results in praise: To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. This doxological outburst at the beginning of the letter is echoed by another towards its conclusion. There Paul speaks of Christ, who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen (6:15–16).

Seven Observations

There are several observations to be made at this point. First, it is clear from the comparison of 1 Timothy 1 and 6 that ascribing glory to God alone is in no way meant to exclude Christ. Paul’s doxologies are heartfelt acts of worship. And the worship he directs to the only God in chapter 1, he directs to the Christ in chapter 6. From this it follows, of course, that Christ is God. Second, glory and honor are given to God, essentially considered; that is to say, in view of the divine nature. Because the three persons of the Trinity are “one true eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (WLC 9), glory is ascribed to one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus Christians do worship one who is man, but they worship him because he is God. Third, as God alone receiving glory is the outcome of salvation, so it is also the purpose of salvation. This is abundantly clear from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Election unto salvation was to the praise of his glorious grace (1:6). The counsel of God’s will concerning those who hope in Christ (i.e., predestination to faith) was so that we might be to the praise of his glory (1:12). Sealing with the Holy Spirit is likewise to the praise of his glory (1:14). God’s motive in salvation was grace; the end envisioned was his own glory. Fourth, there is, therefore, an intimate connection between our salvation and God’s glory. The two are not in competition. As stated in the first question of the Westminster Assembly’s Larger Catechism: “Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully to enjoy him for ever.” Due to the fall into sin, man does not willingly glorify God or enjoy him. Salvation restores both elements. God receives the glory for saving such wretches; and we begin to delight in the God of such sovereign grace. Fifth, this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that there is a genuine sense in which God’s glory is broader and more ultimate than salvation. In Revelation 4 and 5 there are visions of two heavenly worship services. The first ascribes glory and honor and power to God in view of creation (4:11). The second recounts a song sung to the Lamb for his saving work (5:9–10). The grounds for glorifying God, then, are wider than redemption. Indeed, this could not fail to be the case: ultimately the grounds for glorifying God are as wide as God’s own perfect being. Sixth, God is therefore worthy of praise even before and apart from salvation. The glory of God is a higher good than the salvation of mankind. While it is only those who experience salvation who willingly glorify God, we must not make an idol of human good. God’s mercy and grace are past all our ability to express or even conceive; but it would be no kindness at all for us to replace God’s supremacy in God’s own purposes. Seventh, thus the Reformation solas persistently put mankind in his place. We have no knowledge of God apart from his self-revelation. We have no ability to earn our salvation, but Christ must do all for us and in our place. We have no basis on which to claim any of the benefits of Christ’s work except God’s unfettered kindness. Even when we come to receive Christ freely offered in the gospel, we give nothing in exchange: in this connection, faith is a strictly receptive faculty. Thus the first four solas highlight the radical poverty of created and fallen man before the creating and redeeming God.

Conclusion: Where We Stand

The last sola reminds us of where we stand. We are not the center of the universe, God is. The sovereign, covenant Lord tell us: I, I am he who blots out your transgression for my own sake (Isa. 43:25). Even in salvation, we are not central. God will be glorified, and God will be glorified in the salvation of sinners who can contribute nothing to their own salvation. In this way, it is no hindrance to our happiness that it is less important than God’s glory. In fact, it is no small part of our joy and comfort to sing with ancient Israel, Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness (Ps. 115:1).

For Further Study

• Listen to our interview with David VanDrunen on his book God’s Glory Alone: The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life.
• Camden Bucey speaks about the abiding significance of the five solas today.
• Jonathan Edwards, “God Glorified in Man’s Dependence.”
• B. B. Warfield, “Paul’s Earliest Gospel” in The Power of God Unto Salvation.
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ sermons on Romans 11:33-36 (“The Great Doxology”; “The Only Hope”; “All of God”).
• John Brown (Haddington), Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism.

We speak with William Boekestein about the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli. Ulrich Zwingli was a leader of the Reformation in Switzerland. His efforts in reforming doctrine and practice serve as examples and lessons for us today. Rev. Boekestein has written two biographies of Zwingli, each capturing the significance of the man for different audiences. He serves as Pastor of Immanuel Fellowship Church (URCNA) in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He joined us on a previous episode of Christ the Center to discuss the history of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Books by William Boekestein

• Ulrich Zwingli (Bitesize Biographies)
• Ulrich Zwingli: Shepherd Warrior (Trailblazers)
• The Glory of Grace: The Story of the Canons of Dort
• Quest for Comfort: The Story of the Heidelberg Catechism
• Faithfulness Under Fire: The Story of Guido DeBrees

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, William Boekestein

Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. speaks about Calvin’s views on the Sabbath. In this conversation, we look to Dr. Gaffin’s book Calvin and the Sabbath: The Controversy of Applying the Fourth Commandment (Mentor/Christian Focus), which is a revised version of his ThM thesis originally written under the supervision of John Murray at Westminster Theological Seminary in 1961–62. We also speak about Dr. Gaffin’s exegesis and theological development of Hebrews 3–4 in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

We speak with Daniel R. Hyde. Rev. Hyde is pastor of Oceanside URC in Oceanside, California. He has written an article examining the Synod of Dort’s doctrine of the Sabbath, titled “Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi: The Synod of Dort’s (1618–19) Deliverance on the Sabbath.” Originally written for The Puritan Reformed Journal, you can now find it on pages 173–184 of The Confessional Presbyterian Journal, Issue 12 (2016).

Books by Danny Hyde

• Welcome to a Reformed Church (Christ the Center, 116)
• Why Believe in God?
• Jesus Loves the Little Children (Christ the Center, 228)
• In Defense of the Descent: A Response to Contemporary Critics

Books on the Sabbath

Non-Sabbatarian Position:

• Sunday by Willy Rordorf (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1968). This is a fantastic resource on the patristic doctrine and observance of the Lord’s Day.
• From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Wipf & Stock Pub, 2000). Richard Bauckham’s articles in this volume are excellent.

Sabbatarian Position:

• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal, Issue 12 (2016)
• Calvin and the Sabbath by Richard Gaffin (Mentor, 1998). Gaffin’s positive defense of the Sabbath is superb.
• The True Doctrine of the Sabbath by Nicholas Bownde (Reformation Heritage, 2015).

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Hyde, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

Dr. Keith Stanglin joins us to speak about the theology of Jacobus Arminius. Arminius was a Dutch theologian who served as a professor of theology at the University of Leiden. Many Calvinists will be familiar with his name as well as some version of his theological views. But are those views accurate? Today we discuss Arminius’s actual views as opposed to those of Arminians and semi-Pelagians or merely the caricatures that have been leveled against him through the generations. Many listeners will gain a new perspective on Arminius. Dr. Stanglin is associate professor at Austin Graduate School of Theology and has written extensively on the subject.

Books and Articles by Keith Stanglin

Published Books:

• The Reformation to the Modern Church: A Reader in Christian Theology
• Reconsidering Arminius: Beyond the Reformed and Wesleyan Divide
• Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace
• The Missing Public Disputations of Jacob Arminius
• Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe
• Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate

Scholarly Articles:

• “Methodological Musings on Historiography (A Rejoinder),” Church History and Religious Culture 92 (2012): 121–9.
• “The New Perspective on Arminius: Notes on a Historiographical Shift,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 11/3 (2009): 295–310.
• “S. M. Baugh and the Meaning of Foreknowledge: Another Look,” Trinity Journal 26 (2005): 19–31.

Popular-Level Articles:

• “‘Baptism in the Sea’: An Invitation to Typological Interpretation,” Leaven 21/2 (2013): 70–4.
• “Knowledge: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Salt, Leaven, and Light (April 26, 2012): 1–3.
• “‘Faith Comes from What is Heard’: The Reformers on the Ministry of the Word and the Holy Spirit,”Leaven 12/3 (2004): 161–6.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy, Keith Stanglin

Sections

1. Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative. Confirmation of the answer.

2. Another absurdity of Aristotle and Pelagius. Answer by a distinction. Answer fortified by passages from Augustine, and supported by the authority of an Apostle.

3. Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysostom. Answer by a negative.

4. Fourth absurdity urged of old by the Pelagians. Answer from the works of Augustine. Illustrated by the testimony of our Saviour. Another answer, which explains the use of exhortations.

5. A third answer, which contains a fuller explanation of the second. Objection to the previous answers. Objection refuted. Summary of the previous answers.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

Sections

1. Connection of this chapter with the preceding. Augustine’s similitude of a good and bad rider. Question answered in respect to the devil.

2. Question answered in respect to God and man. Example from the history of Job. The works of God distinguished from the works of Satan and wicked men. 1. By the design or end of acting. How Satan acts in the reprobate. 2. How God acts in them.

3. Old Objection, that the agency of God in such cases is referable to prescience or permission, not actual operation. Answer, showing that God blinds and hardens the reprobate, and this in two ways; 1. By deserting them; 2. By delivering them over to Satan.

4. Striking passages of Scripture, proving that God acts in both ways, and disposing of the objection with regard to prescience. Confirmation from Augustine.

5. A modification of the former answer, proving that God employs Satan to instigate the reprobate, but, at the same time, is free from all taint.

6. How God works in the hearts of men in indifferent matters. Our will in such matters not so free as to be exempt from the overruling providence of God. This confirmed by various examples.

7. Objection, that these examples do not form the rule. An answer, fortified by the testimony of universal experience, by Scripture, and a passage of Augustine.

8. Some, in arguing against the error of free will, draw an argument from the event. How this is to be understood.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

In his “Summary of Doctrine Concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,” Calvin articulates the idea of union and communion with Christ through the means of grace.

The end of the whole Gospel ministry is that God … communicate Christ to us who are disunited by sin and hence ruined, that we may from him enjoy eternal life; that in a word all heavenly treasures be so applied to us that they be no less ours than Christ’s himself. We believe this communication to be mystical, and incomprehensible to human reason, and Spiritual, since it is effected by the Holy Spirit [by whom] he joins us to Christ our Head, not in an imaginary way, but most powerfully and truly, so that we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and from his vivifying flesh he transfuses eternal life into us. To effect this union, the Holy Spirit uses a double instrument, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. When we say that the Holy Spirit uses an external minister as instrument, we mean this: both in the preaching of the Word and in the use of the sacraments, there are two ministers, who have distinct offices. The external minister administers the vocal word, and the sacred signs which are external, earthly and fallible. But the internal minister, who is the Holy Spirit, freely works internally, while by his secret virtue he effects in the hearts of whomsoever he will their union with Christ through one faith. This union is a thing internal, heavenly and indestructible. In the preaching of the Word, the external minister holds forth the vocal word, and it is received by the ears. The internal minister, the Holy Spirit, truly communicates the thing proclaimed through the Word, that is Christ…. so that it is not necessary that Christ or for that matter his Word be received through the organs of the body, but the Holy Spirit effects this union by his secret virtue, by creating faith in us, by which he makes us living members of Christ, true God and true man.[1]

[1] Jean Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 170-77.