Caspar Olevianus on Justification and Good Works

168 Q: What kind of antidote to this accusation does faith find in the sacrifice of Christ?

A: It is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which originated and developed out of His voluntary obedience, or perfect love of God and neighbor. Since the One who suffered death kept the law perfectly and thus was not liable to death, I believe that such a death was complete payment not only for the evil I have done but also for the good that I should have done but failed to do. The latter is also sin and has also been erased and paid for with the obedience of Christ's death (Phil. 2; Rom. 5; Gal. 3,4; 1 John 1)

169 Q: How would it be however, if we countered this accusation of Satan before the judgment seat of God with a kind of righteousness that derived partly from the suffering and death of Christ and partly from our good works?

A: We could not do that without great danger both to the honor of God and to our own consciences. First of all, if we should add something, however little, from our works to the righteousness that Christ has obtained for us by His suffering and death, then we could still have reason to boast in ourselves. But faith certainly and completely removes all boasting from us and ascribes it to Christ alone (Rom. 3:27, 4:2; Jer. 9:23; 1 Cor. 1:31). Therefore, we must never add even a fragment of our works, no matter how big or small it is, to the obedience or righteousness of Jesus Christ. Otherwise faith would present Christ's righteousness before the tribunal of God as though it were not complete in itself but needed to be supplemented by us. This is what the holy apostle Paul teaches in Philippians 3:7-10.
Second, if we were to mix our own works together with the merits of Christ, we would not have a peaceful conscience. Believer's obedience and good works are still sullied with the stains of the flesh and are imperfect; much that is sinful still clings to their good works. Thus if their works were presented before the judgment seat of God, they would of necessity be liable to the sentence that God has already pronounced in His Word, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them (Gal. 3:13). It is, therefore, easy to see that if we should depend in part on our works, even a little, our consciences could never be at peace or assured that we are justified before God and can stand in His presence. Instead they would be assured of our condemnation. As Scripture says, "As many as are of the works of the law [that is, of the opinion that they are wholly or partially justified before God by these works] are under the curse" (Gal. 3:10). Therefore, says Paul in Romans 4:16, we are freely justified through faith "so that the promise might be sure."
The entire doctrine of justification, then, has two goals on which we should focus our attention: (1) that God alone be given the glory for justifying us (Rom. 3,4); nothing remains of which even the greatest of saints can boast, not even Abraham himself (Rom. 4:2); and (2) that our consciences be peaceful and steadfast (Rom. 4). These two goals of our justification are fundamentally altered, however, if we should add our own works, wholly or in part, to the righteousness that Christ obtained for us and freely given to us. It is only right, then, that we let the perfect righteousness that Christ obtained for us by His death suffice for us. Then we shall not be robbing Christ of His glory and shall have peace and quiet in our consciences. For it is impossible that the perfect, eternal righteousness of Christ, freely given us to be ours through faith, should lack anything before the judgment seat of God. We have absolutely nothing to worry about if we hold on to this righteousness with a genuine trust.

170 Q: You are not saying, then, that good works are useless?

A: They do not serve to make us right with God, either wholly or in part, but they do serve this purpose: after we have been freely and graciously justified through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, we show with good works that we are thankful to God the Lord, so that God might be praised through us. That is the reason we were originally created and then redeemed, as Zachariah teaches in Luke 1:74,75: "That we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness that is pleasing to him all the days of our life."
Good works are also useful because by the example of our good works we win others to Christ and keep those already won from falling away. The longer they are kept close to Christ, the more they are built up.


- Casper Olivianus, A Firm Foundation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 115-116

The "Real Presence"

In some of my recent dialogs with my friends at school and elsewhere, Ive become increasingly annoyed by the temptations (of all of us) to adopt terms into our theological language by which we attribute a different meaning than it has had throughout history.

This helps nobody, and only serves to confuse... which should be avoided at all costs.

One point in particular is the Reformed use of the term "The Real Presence" in regards to the Lord's Supper. Historically this has meant something very specific, something that we as reformed do not even remotely mean (and which we would avoid entirely) when we use the term "Real Presence". So I was very happy to come across this in Keith A. Mathison's book "Given For You":

Calvin did not often use the expression "real presence." He did not do so because, as Tylenda observes, "Calvin considered a 'real' presence as one which involves the following: Christ's body must leave heaven and be enclosed in the bread so that the bread is said to be the body of Christ; if Christ's body be so enclosed, it follows that it is corporeally present, and if the body is present, it is locally present." Calvin would allow the use of the word real only "if it be used for 'true', i.e. as opposed to deceptive or illusory. The problem for Calvin was that the word real carried with it a lot of unwanted connotations, and people were inclined to read into it things he did not want to communicate - specifically ideas such as local or corporeal presence, but he strongly believed in the true presence of Christ.

For the sake of clarity, let us use terms that convey what we mean without the risk of confusing people. The Reformed can claim the "True Presence" let "The Real Presence" belong to those who defined it.

The Meaning Of The Lord's Supper

I stumbled across this interesting little article today on The Meaning of the Lord's Supper. In it they gave Herman Ridderbos's view of the Meaning of the Lord's Supper which I found to be very interesting and thought I'd share it:

H. Ridderbos has discussed the Lord's Supper extensively in his book on the synoptic gospels: The Coming of the Kingdom. The Bible indicates that the Lord's Supper was instituted at a passover meal as prescribed in Ex. 12 and 13. This is very important for the understanding of the Lord's Supper, says Ridderbos, it leads to the question how exactly the Lord's Supper is related to the passover. Did Jesus Christ present Himself here as the true passover lamb? This is maintained by many scholars, but Ridderbos does not agree. When Jesus Christ speaks of "his body" He does not distribute the lamb, but the bread. And concerning the wine, Jesus Christ does not say that this refers to the blood of the passover lamb, but to the blood sprinkled at the making of the covenant (425). The bread and the wine do not represent the sacrifice of Christ, says Ridderbos.

The true background for the Lord's Supper is the sacrifice meal. That means that the Lord's Supper is a meal similar to the meals the people of Israel enjoyed after having sacrificed an animal to God. The important consequence of this is, that the sacrifice itself is no longer a part of the Lord's Supper. In the sacrifice meal the sacrifice is not represented in the meal. The meal is the result of the sacrifice (426ff.). This means that the Lord's Supper does not set before us the death of Jesus Christ, but only the beneficial results of His death.

At first sight this does not seem to be a very important change. But this impression changes when we see how Ridderbos applies this to the elements of the Supper. The breaking of the bread does not belong to the symbolism according to him. When Jesus said: "This is my body," He did not refer to His sacrifice, but to what He is distributing.

The breaking itself does not have any particular meaning. Breaking bread was a customary action: the father of the family did this at every meal (429).

Ridderbos has even stronger objections against the pouring of the wine as a symbol of the shedding of Christ's blood. The verb "to shed" cannot be used for the action of pouring wine into a cup. Moreover, the wine was not poured out at this moment of the passover meal. The wine had been standing ready for some time, when Jesus spoke these words (429ff.).

Ridderbos concludes that not the acquisition but only the application of salvation is represented in the Lord's Supper. This means: Christ's death is not represented in (broken) bread and (poured) wine. The point of the bread and the wine is, that they are there to be eaten and drunk. The participants in their believing act of eating and drinking will receive the virtue of Christ's expiatory death (437ff.).

This is undoubtedly a reduction compared to the traditional Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper. Of the meanings we found: the meal, the communion and the eschatology, only the first is emphasized by Ridderbos. From this first meaning every reference to the sacrifice is removed. The Lord's Supper should be conducted without the breaking of bread or the pouring out of wine. No distinction is indicated between bread and wine. The meaning of the Lord's Supper can, in Ridderbos' view, be summarized under two aspects:

1. Christ gives the results of His workof satisfaction
2. We receive the results of Christ's work of satisfaction.

Not having read any of Ridderbos's work I hope this is an accurate explanation of his view.

The Mystery Of Our Redemption By Christ Contained In The First Commandment

"Verily, the mystery of our redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ is manifestly contained in the first precept of the ten commandments. For it is evident, that the Israelites’ free departure out of Egypt was a type or figure of the delivery of the whole compass of the earth, and of all the kingdoms of the world, which should be wrought by Christ our Lord, who hath now already set all the world free from the bondage of sin and hell. But if any man doubt of this let him diligently consider with himself the meaning of the ceremony and sacrament of that bodily deliverance, I mean, the very passover. For what is he that knoweth not that the paschal lamb did in a figure represent Christ our Redeemer? Are Paul’s words unknown, who saith, “Christ our passover is offered up?” Have not all the apostles and John the Baptist called our Lord “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world?” The words of the prophet Isaiah also, in his fifty-second chapter, are apparently known; where he compareth the delivery of Israel out of Egypt with the redemption of all the world wrought by Christ from the slavery of sin. Wherefore, in this first precept of the ten commandments is contained the mystery of Christ our Lord, and our salvation: so that, as often as those words of God shall be recited in our ears, we ought not so much to set our eyes and minds upon the ancient delivery of Israel out of Egypt, as upon the new and latter redemption, which we have by Christ Jesus, thereby to quicken our hope, and not to despair, but that the most excellent and mighty God both is and will be our God, as heretofore he hath been theirs."

- Henry Bullinger, The Decades (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004)

Is the History of the Old Testament Accurate?

Meredith Kline has a chapter in the book "Can I Trust My Bible" in which he deals with the accuracy of OT history, and whether we can trust it.

Some quotes:

"... the view of history embedded in the Old Testament is not the sort of thing archaeology is able to verify."

"It must suffice to state here that apart from the God of the infallible Word, truth would be lost in meaningless darkness through which there would never resound the creative word, "Let there be light," separating the light from the darkness and assigning to each its definition as "Day" or "Night." And apart from the infallible, absolutely authoritative Word of God, man's quest for truth would be a hopeless writhing to escape the coils of subjectivism and historical relativism. The necessary presupposition for the writing of this book or for predication of any kind is the God of the infallible Word."

"... rationalistic scholars, like little boys, delight in getting the biggest and muddiest splash possible out of small puddles."

"To take our stand humbly with those whose eyes God has opened to recognize the perfect truthfulness of the Word He has spoken, does not mean that we are committed to all the woodenly literalistic interpretation that has been imposed on the Old Testament. But great caution is necessary at this point lest warning against one error, a far worse error be encouraged. The "worse error" we refer to is found in the dominant theological movement of our day, Barthianism, which denies the real, literal historicity of the key events in Scripture"

"The practical consequence is that the reins of Barthian interpretation are let loose and it runs amuck over the sacred records, dissolving Biblical history in the acid of theological allegorization - allegorization as unwarranted and undisciplined as its older, less sophisticated cousins. "

"Archaeological research has, or course, also posed some new problems with respect to the accuracy of Biblical history in points of detail. But this need cause no undue concern for the Bible student. On the Biblical side, allowance must be made for various possibilities of interpretation and, as we have seen, for a measure of textual variation. On the archaeological side, allowance must be made for the fragmentary nature of the evidence (only a few score of some 25,000 sites in Biblical lands have been excavated) and for the differences and uncertainties in the interpretation of the evidence available, due in part to the relative youth of this science."

"Those who recognize the Word of God for what it is can with patience of faith await the final vindication of the perfect truthfulness of that Word."

"It is not, however, the ever increasing witness of archaeology but the self-witness of the divine Word which leaves all negative criticism of that Word without acceptable excuse in the sight of its Author."

---------------

Anyway, its a great article, make sure you read the whole thing to get these great quotes in their full context, here.

Geerhardus Vos and the Historical Reliability of Scripture

The Princeton Theological Review published an article by Vos on the historical reliability of Scripture (1906). It's pretty lengthy but well worth the read.

Read the article here.



(HT: Nicholas T. Batzig at feedingonchrist.com)

A Quest For More

check out the book here