I wish Luther had not been a prophet
Michael Brown
9 Comments
In 1677, when John Owen (1616-1683) published his book, The Doctrine of Justification By Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed and Vindicated," the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide was still engulfed in controversy. "In my judgment," said the English Calvinist, "Luther spake the truth when he said, 'Amisso articulo justificationis, simul amissa est tota doctrina Christiana.' (trans., "When the article of justification is lost, at the same time the whole Christian doctrine is lost.") And I wish he had not been a true prophet, when he foretold that in the following ages the doctrine hereof would again be obscured." (Works, 5:67)
As a Reformed theologian, Oxford University Vice-Chancellor, and Congregationalist pastor, Owen defended the Protestant and confessional doctrine of justification against Arminianism, Socinianism, and Roman Catholicism. Indeed, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith was primarily a repudiation of these three positions, particularly Socinianism. (To read an extensive series of blogposts on this work by Owen, see Todd Pedlar's blog, "Semper Ubi, Sub Ubi").
These were not, however, Owen’s only opponents on this subject. While Protestants in the seventeenth-century generally understood the formal cause of a believer’s justification to be the imputed righteousness of Christ, not all agreed on the precise definition of that imputed righteousness. At the Westminster Assembly (1643-1649), for example, the majority believed that the imputed righteousness of Christ included both Christ’s active and passive obedience. A small minority, however, affirmed the latter but denied the former. Among these were the Assembly’s first prolocutor, William Twisse (1578-1646), and the theologian Thomas Gataker (1574-1654). While Owen was not present at the Westminster Assembly, he was nevertheless fully committed to the majority view of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (IAOC). So committed was he, that the confession he helped craft in 1658 for the Congregationalist churches in England included words to that effect. (For more on that, go here.)
What is interesting, however, is the connection between Owen's doctrine of the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) to his doctrine of IAOC. I hope to trace out this line in subsequent posts.
For now, however, I would like to ask you about Owen's comment about Luther and the attack on the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide. As a Reformed Scholastic in the period known as high orthodoxy (1640-1725), Owen was part of the confessional, institutionalized, Protestant church that, in many ways, codified the work of the first and second generation reformers. Yet, even after 150 years, the gospel was still under attack. What do you make of that? And what do you make of the fact Luther "prophecy" seems to be true even up to the present day?
Reader Comments (9)
That there is nothing new under the sun; that there is no such thing as a Golden Age in church history; that the theology of the Cross comports well with Luther's "prophecy"; that whatever else amillenial eschateology teaches, it captures the truth that man is the same sinful beast he has always been and not much changes in his world for better or ill, no matter how much he likes to think so; that the church is fallible but the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.
I'm sure there's more, of course.
“Yet, even after 150 years, the gospel was still under attack. What do you make of that? And what do you make of the fact Luther "prophecy" seems to be true even up to the present day?”
Mike – I don’t have much time to respond to this right now, but I think you are asking the right kinds of questions. And Zrim, I know that you have an aversion to “activism,” but this is precisely the point at which the church needs to be active. (In our day, and in fact, in all times. And it is a point at which, obviously, the church could have done a better job. Now, it’s not my point to lay any blame with anyone. The Gospel has always been “under attack. Or more precisely, when it has not appeared to be under attack, it has had its detractors, and those who would rather not deal with it.
I think we can all agree that Paul left us with a well-thought-out and well-articulated doctrine of faith. (And he echoed Jesus’s many teachings about faith). And of course, we call Paul’s teachings “Scripture,” and we have all that we believe about the Scriptures.
But the early church had its own set of problems to deal with (i.e. gnosticism), and this body of doctrine that Paul gave us did not necessarily address the full-blown problem of gnosticism. That’s why the early church went to great lengths to articulate what it believed about the Trinity, and the particular relationship of God and man within Jesus Christ. By that point (roughly the council of Chalcedon), soteriology had already been subsumed under the sacramental practice of the church, a situation which was probably largely to account for the largely “catholic” flavor of the church in those days.
So not much about “the doctrine of faith” was in the forefront of public teaching. It’s true that the debates between Augustine and Pelagius were occurring, but even at that time, the errors of Pelagius were so (if I may say “mutant,”) that even Augustine did not squarely need to address this issue of faith – that’s why his teachings don’t quite seem appropriate (although very good) to address such issues as Mike brought up, i.e., Arminianism, Socinianism, and Roman Catholicism.
(Michael Horton mentions the council of Orange in Putting the Amazing Back into Grace as having taken up some of these issues. But in my studies, I have not been able to locate the historical situation of the council of Orange – what the scope of it was, whether it was a general or regional council, or even, for that matter, where Orange is even located!)
So, to make a bad metaphor, Protestants of the 16th century played the hand that was dealt to them. God gave Luther to us, and we acknowledge that, like everyone, he was not perfect. And we had Calvin, who tried to sort out what Luther was saying. And the Protestant Scholastics. But in the meantime, there were many factions going off in a lot of directions (the key unifier in that day was that the direction was away from Rome, in whatever direction – Reformed and Lutheran doctrines among these, but also the English, not to mention the “radicals”. Each of these movements was not strictly directed by the needs of the gospel, but by political concerns, and a whole host of other things.
So now we in the year 2008 find ourselves in the midst of a broader church situation that really does not put “cherish the gospel of faith” high up on its priority list. We see people who ought to be cherishing the gospel of faith spending their time even bowing and kissing the pope’s ring (see below).
We (those of us who do cherish the gospel of faith) have thus been dealt a hand of cards not too far removed in some respects from that of our 16th century forebears. Like them, I think there really is just one proper response for the church, and that can be summed up by another bad example (this time, a book title), “a long obedience in the same direction.”
This is no different from the advice that Paul gave, at those times when the gospel was challenged by judaizers. We have a different kind of judaizers, but one and the same response is required.
Here is where the church should be the church; it should teach the gospel, and it should teach its members to teach the gospel. Beware of the wolves. I think that, from a practical standpoint, Michael Horton going on 60 minutes to challenge Joel Osteen is a good thing. I think blogs like this one and the Confessional Outhouse (and, De Regnis Duobus, where even my participation can be regarded as “cool”) are faithful to the gospel of faith.
Beyond this, we should just live our daily lives and be grateful for what God has given to us. Seek peace and pursue it, and such like that.
(John,
"And Zrim, I know that you have an aversion to 'activism,' but this is precisely the point at which the church needs to be active."
My aversion is to activism, not being active.)
My aversion is to activism, not being active.
Would that be, like, a Zrim-ism? :)
On his own blog, Zrim once made the statement, "I don't make statements, I just go to church." I said, "Zrim, this whole blog is a statement." one of the funniest moments of my online life.
Mike – to get back to the topic, and to clarify a bit, I think I would say that Luther was not all that much of a prophet. He merely knew church history.
You said, “While Protestants in the seventeenth-century generally understood the formal cause of a believer’s justification to be the imputed righteousness of Christ, not all agreed on the precise definition of that imputed righteousness.” I’ve recently picked up such works as Piper’s “The Future of Justification” and also R.C. Sproul’s “Getting the Gospel Right.” Without having read those works too carefully, my understanding is that the contention is that, even if Christians aren’t required to form the correct definition of how justification occurs, it is problematic (they say) if a believer doesn’t come to the sort of understanding that acknowledges that something like these steps must occur for God to save us.
I’m a big picture kind of person, and some of the details are allowed to get by. I look at the world as it is, and the church as it is, and I wonder, “what in the world is God doing.” Please understand, I have no doubt at all that it is God who is working in all of this. And I look at the Reformed Christian Faith and I know in my heart and mind and I feel it in my bones that this is the gold standard of Christianity. Reformed Christianity is the “city on the hill” wherever it is; this is the light that ought not to be put under the bushel.
But given that there are very small numbers of Reformed believers in comparison with both those who call themselves Christians (see your photo below) or in fact, all of humanity, one must conclude either that God is sending a lot of people to hell, or that he is extremely generous in his forgiveness. (Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield also believed that God was generous with his forgiveness.)
Really, your photograph below nails the problem of this particular issue.
Without damning any person in public or in private, I believe that Reformed Christianity (corporately – church and laypeople) need to understand and articulate the true gospel, (as well as to live according to it) not only on Sunday, but in their daily lives.
Beyond that, I do believe it is important to draw the distinctions, again, not necessarily in a way that injures any person, but in a way that carefully shows how the gospel IS different from such things as, say, the practice of Roman Catholicism, and even the doctrines of the Methodists and Nazarenes.
Our lives should be devoted to furthering the work of what you call “the confessional, institutionalized, Protestant church.” It should be no surprise at all to us that the gospel “is under attack” now, or 150 years out from 1517. It has always been that way.
I’ll look forward to your posts on John Owen.
John said, "But given that there are very small numbers of Reformed believers in comparison with both those who call themselves Christians (see your photo below) or in fact, all of humanity, one must conclude either that God is sending a lot of people to hell, or that he is extremely generous in his forgiveness. (Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield also believed that God was generous with his forgiveness.)"
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone...not our doctine or our tradition. I suspect you are inferring that only Reformed believers will persevere? Again, I think the categories of the in/visible church are extremely helpful here.
"Without damning any person in public or in private, I believe that Reformed Christianity (corporately – church and laypeople) need to understand and articulate the true gospel, (as well as to live according to it) not only on Sunday, but in their daily lives."
We live in light of the Gospel, not according to it. It may be read as a minor concern, but this confusion of law and gospel is so easily made it should be pointed out, I think, at every opportunity. Moreover, what do you mean "not only on Sunday, but in their daily lives"? I detect this all too common idea that those who have a high view of the Sabbath have little to no place for covenant-keeping in their six days. Can you elaborate on just what you are driving at here?
(Mike,
You can call that Zrim-ism, sure. Do I get royalties?It is along the lines of the distinction between the simplicity and simplistic. I like Gaffin's "fully involved detachment," as well.)
Zrim – to the contrary, I’m sure that very many more will “turn and be healed” at some point in their lives, than we can possibly imagine. I do think some Reformed think that only the Reformed will persevere. But we both know the “doing” of the perseverance is God’s.
“We live in light of the Gospel, not according to it. It may be read as a minor concern, but this confusion of law and gospel is so easily made it should be pointed out, I think, at every opportunity.”
This is a very good distinction. There are no “shoulds” or “oughts” contained within the gospel.
“what do you mean "not only on Sunday, but in their daily lives"? I detect this all too common idea that those who have a high view of the Sabbath have little to no place for covenant-keeping in their six days. Can you elaborate on just what you are driving at here?”
I do suspect that some people compartmentalize their faith – we put it in the “church on Sunday” box, and then forget about it the rest of the time. Maybe I am wrong about it, but I don’t think so. We all ought to “live in the light of the Gospel” seven days a week. It ought to be evident to non-believers that we come into contact with on a day to day basis.
John,
I think more often than not saintly living and pilgrimage looks an awful lot like compartmentalization. I make lots more room for believers trodding through this life and appearing defeated. The theology of the Cross seems to be all about challenging our natural instincts, which seems to challlenge these notions that our lives have to be "evident." Often times true piety looks impious.