Sunday, April 5, 2020

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? (5 Part Series)

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Pt. 1



The topic of this and, hopefully, the next several posts is to take a brief look at the English reformation prior to Queen Mary’s ascension and the period following Queen Elizabeth’s enthronement. The question to be considered is - How deep, thorough, and on-going was the English reformation during this period of time considering the trials that transpired over the next 100 years?

The conventional, yet I would submit questionable, understanding of the years 1547 to 1553 under King Edward is that it was a time of robust and unimpeded advancement in reforming the Church's doctrine and practice. Certainly, to a significant extent, this was indeed the case. Over the course of those years Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had introduced a reformed liturgy of worship in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the subsequent and further reformed 1552 version. 1547 saw the first Book of Homilies published to aid the teaching and preaching of the Gospel doctrines in a country lacking clergy fluent in that very Gospel. A reformed confession of faith, The Forty-Two Articles, was completed in 1552 and issued in 1553. That confession embodied the redemptive teachings of Scripture emphasized by the reformers: Salvation of sinful man was by God’s grace alone, through faith only, in Jesus Christ and his finished work alone.


Yet, those Gospel advancements in England were far from universally accepted within Church and State. There had long been a persistant Roman Catholic party of bishops throughout Cranmer’s service as Archbishop which had resisted the reforms he sought under King Henry (1533-1547).  In his biography of Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch chronicles a see-saw battle which ensued during those years between the Evangelicals under Cranmer and the Conservative Roman Catholic party in which bishop Stephen Gardiner played a prominent role. One could accurately describe the progress of the reformation in England during that time as a repetitive dance of three steps forward and two steps back. And unfortunately that frustrating struggle did not cease during the "golden" years following Henry’s death under the youthful King Edward.

In 1547, Cranmer then invited the influential Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli to England to help further the English reformation. The next year, after accepting the offer, he was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.  Over the next five years, Vermigli played a role in which he made significant contributions to the reformation of the Church. Yet interestingly we find that, during his first year at Oxford, he wrote a letter to the Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer (December 26, 1548) in which he expresses his concern regarding the "popish party" and their opinion of Archbishop Cranmer:
​“... they till now were wont to traduce [Cranmer] as a man ignorant of theology, and as being only conversant with matters of government; but now, believe me, he has shewn himself so mighty a theologian against them as they would rather not have proof of, and they are compelled, against their inclination, to acknowledge his learning, and power and dexterity in debate.”
​Peter-Martyr, hoping that Bucer would come to England to aid in the reformed cause, continues with his assessment of the situation under Edward visa-vis the reformation, and alludes to what is holding back further reforms:
​“... because the magistracy, like yours, is altogether disposed to the reformation of the church, but with very few exception, does not possess the proper instruments for that object.”
​Two things can be inferred from the above quotes. There was significant Romish opposition among many of the clergy and bishops to the reforms Cranmer sought. And there was a lack of able preachers and teachers to effectively dispose of that opposition by means of magnifying the evangelical truths of the Reformation. Later, in a letter to Henric Bullinger, Vermigli verifies this inference, as well as noting the problem he saw with some in the Church who wanted only partial reform:
​“There are certainly very many obstacles; especially the number of our adversaries, the lack of preachers, and the gross vices of those who profess the gospel; besides the worldly prudence of some parties who think it quite right that religion should be purified, but are willing only to make as few alterations as possible; for feeling as they do, and thinking as civilians, they consider that any great changes would be dangerous to the state.”
​This Erastian mindset, which existed among many of the Civil and Church rulers (i.e. how the reformation of the church posed a potential risk to the State), unfortunately had a dampening effect on reform not only during Henry’s reign but to a significant extent in that of Elizabeth’s.


The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Pt. 2

The question posed in the last post was - How deep, thorough, and on-going was the English reformation during the period before and after Queen Mary's reign?  When Queen Mary took the throne in 1553, the English church had been on the path of reform.  Yet that reform was far from over.  The 1552 prayer book had just been issued, eliminating those 1549 prayers and liturgical practices which could still be interpreted as to allow a Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the the Mass, and sacerdotalism.  This was evidence of Thomas Cranmer's commitment to continuing reforms.  At this point, the English reformation, far from complete, was in many ways still in an early stage.  Arguably, Cranmer had envisioned further changes.

The reformation of the church had accelerated under Edward, more so than with King Henry.  No longer was there the religious/political calculations and oversight of King Henry which Cranmer had to contend with and navigate.  Still, there were two situations which existed that especially slowed things down.  One was the lack of able preachers in the church.  This situation would come into play years later resulting in a confrontation between Queen Elizabeth and bishop Edmund Grindal.  The other circumstance was  the existence of a large party, even a majority, of bishops that opposed the reforms being enacted. From Oxford, Peter Vermigli wrote to Rudolph Gualter in a letter dated June 1, 1550:
"There is no lack of preachers in London, but throughout the whole kingdom they are very, very rare...  The sheep of the divine pasture, the sheep of God's hand, the sheep redeemed by the blood of Christ, are defrauded of their proper nourishment of the divine word; unless the people be taught, the change of religion will certainly avail them but little."
Earlier that year in January, he had written of the second concern in a letter to Henric Bullinger:
"... respecting the progress of Christ's kingdom in this country...  The sum however is this, that many things yet remain to be done, which we have in expectation rather than in reality.  The perverseness of the bishops is incredible; they oppose us with all their might:  yet some of that order, though very few, are favorable to the undertaking."
 The same determined resistance of the Roman Catholic leaning bishops that Cranmer had experienced under Henry continued during the Edwardian years despite the Archbishop's faithful labors.  Vermigli continues:
"The labour of the most reverend, the archbishop of Canterbury is not to be expressed.  For whatever has hitherto been wrested from them [i.e. the bishops] we have acquired solely by the industry, and activity of this prelate."
So a picture emerges from these accounts of a church out of balance; an episcopacy very much at odds with itself.  The continued presence of Rome-leaning clergy ensured that once the new Catholic Queen took the throne the Cranmerian reforms would be quickly reversed.  Though significant, the Gospel advances in the church had yet not gone very deep.  This conclusion is all too apparent in comments Vermigli made to Bullinger in a December 15, 1553 letter from Strasbourg, four months after Mary came to power.  He wrote that transubstantiation had been easily reinstated due to the fact that those opposing it were overwhelmed by the number favoring it.  From which we can surmise that much of the hierarchy of the Church had remained untouched by the reformation, or only superficially so.  And under the new Roman Catholic monarch, they had moved quickly to reverse the progress of the previous years.

Additionally, there's a sad irony to the events of 1547-1552.  Cranmer had not been one inclined to use the power of the State to enforce reform.  His attitude to those opposing the Gospel reforms are summed up in these words of his:
"What will ye have man do to him that is not yet come to knowledge of the truth of the Gospel?...  Shall we perhaps, in his journey coming towards us, by severity and cruel behavior overthrow him, and as it were in his visage stop him?  I take not this the way to allure me to embrace the doctrine of the Gospel.  And if it be a true rule of our Savior Christ to do good for evil, then let such as are not yet come to favor our religion learn to follow the doctrine of the Gospel by our example in using them friendly and charitably." (from Ashley Null)
So, had he ignored his own advice, he might have purged the church of his opponents. Indeed some were removed, the most prominent example being bishop Stephen Gardiner who spent over five years in prison and yet reemerged in 1553.  Had Cranmer acted ruthlessly, one possible result might have been a much stronger resistance to Roman Catholicism being reinstated under Mary.  Yet having chosen the better part, Cranmer, by and large, refused to battle according to flesh and blood.  And thus it turned out that some of the very opponents of reform who had been left untouched later led the charge against him at his trial, leading to his death.  And from what I can tell, many of these clergy and bishops remained in their positions even after Elizabeth took the throne, guaranteeing further institutional resistance to the reform efforts that followed.


The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty? Part 3

... a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6b)

Supreme Governor of the Church
Fast forward through the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary to that of her half-sister Elizabeth:  Protestantism has been restored, but what course did the Church of England take once it again embraced the religion of Cranmer? How one answers that question is determined, in part, by whether one sees the restoration of the church under Elizabeth as a glass half-or-more-full or a glass half-empty.  I fall into the latter camp, despite that many of the Edwardian reforms were restored and the gospel was being freely preached and received.  The problem, in my view, was that the Church under Elizabeth ceased being a church that, above all, sought to conform itself to Scripture alone.  The establishment and maintenance of peace, both domestically and internationally, was once again in the mix.  And that ingredient always involved political and pragmatic calculations.

In the previous two posts, I've noted three particular situations that impeded the progress of reform in England - 1) the Monarch as Head or Supreme Governor of the Church, 2) the presence of a large body (possibly majority) of bishops that leaned covertly or overtly towards Rome, and 3) the lack of gospel preaching clergy.  Unlike the period of King Henry's rule, under Boy-King Edward the first circumstance was not much of an issue.  But when Elizabeth took the throne this changed.  Though a confirmed Protestant and now Supreme Governor of the Church, which theoretically bode well for further reforms, Elizabeth was nonetheless queen over the realm of England, responsible for both its domestic and diplomatic well-being.  How she proceeded to rule was to return the state of reform visa-vis the Monarch to that of a mixed bag.  In addition, many of the conservative bishops were also members of the upper house of Parliament.  In these two entities of government, the reformation was thus faced with a mixture of state and church that ensured right doctrine and biblical truth would not always carry the day in ecclesial matters.

The historical record certainly shows that under Queen Elizabeth many strides were taken towards strengthening Protestantism in England.  Those accomplishments are fairly well known, especially among reformed Anglicans.  Rather than focus on those advancements, my concern is with those things that kept the glass half empty, i.e. slowed or detoured reform in England.  For by the time of Archbishop Laud, the Church of England had gone in a direction that Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley would hardly have identified with.  What happened was that the reformation, rather than picking up where it left off under Cranmer, was slowed in its tracks and even diverted by events under Queen Elizabeth and those that followed.  From Diarmaid MacCulloch (article here):
... At home, Elizabeth wanted to conciliate conservatives [i.e. those who preferred a more medieval church practice]; abroad, she wanted to conciliate suspicious Catholic Spain and France, and also to win friends among the Lutheran princes of Germany and Scandinavia, who were increasingly hostile to the Calvinist and other Reformed Churches to their south. At the same time, however, she was identified with the Protestant cause by her birth... Elizabeth herself shows signs of having preferred his discredited first Prayer Book of 1549 to his second of 1552, but virtually no-one at the time agreed with her: to reintroduce 1549 was not practical politics.
Elizabeth's solution to her dilemmas was remarkable: quite deliberately, she established what proved to he a snapshot, frozen in time, of the Church as it had been in September 1552, ignoring the progress made in further changing the Church of England after that date. 
Who were the "conservatives" of which MacCulloch refers, the ones whom Elizabeth wanted to conciliate? According to ecclesiastical historian, Dom Henry Norbert Birt (1861-1919):
After a careful study of all available sources of information he estimates the number of [Catholic] priests holding livings in England at Elizabeth's accession at 7500 (p. 162). A large number, forming the majority of these, accepted, though unwillingly, the new state of things, and according to tradition many of them were in the habit of celebrating Mass early and of reading the Church of England service later on Sunday morning. (citation here)
This gives insight to the concerns regarding the advancement of reform of recently arrived Marian exiles such as John Jewell who wrote, in his first letter upon returning, to Peter Martyr on March 20, 1559:
Reformer John Jewell
The bishops are a great hindrance to us; for being, as you know, among the nobility and leading men in the upper house, and having none there on our side to expose their artifices and falsehoods by word of mouth... The queen, meanwhile, though she openly favours our cause, yet is wonderfully afraid of allowing any innovations:  this is owing partly to the influence of count Feria, a Spaniard, and Philip's ambassador.  She is, however, prudently, and firmly, and piously following up her purpose, though somewhat more slowly than we could wish.
Jewell's last comment can be understood to show that, in his (hopeful?) estimation, Elizabeth was a committed Protestant and yet, due to her responsibilities of State, she was reluctant to allow the progress of reform too quickly and, as later events would show, proceed too far.  In a series of letters to Martyr, he continues with his assessment of the Church's situation:
... yet the people everywhere, and especially the whole of the nobility, are both disgusted with their [bishop's] insolent exultation, and exceedingly thirsting for the gospel.  Hence it has happened that the mass in many places has of itself fallen to the ground, without any laws for its discontinuance.  If the queen herself would but banish is from her private chapel, the whole thing might easily be got rid of.  Of such importance among us are the examples of princes.  For whatever is done after the example of the sovereign, the people, as you well know, suppose to be done rightly. (3rd letter, April 14, 1559)
For our queen is now thinking of the league of Smalcald; but there is one who writes to her from Germany [a former and now exiled bishop], that this can by no means be brought about, if you [Vermigli] should return to us... But however this may be, we have exhibited to the queen all our articles of religion and doctrine, and have not departed in the slightest degree from the confession of Zurich... (4th letter, April 28, 1559)
 For we are all of us hitherto as strangers at home...  As to religion, it has been effected, I hope, under good auspices, that it shall be restored to the same state as it was during your latest residence among us, under Edward.  But, as far as I can perceive at present, there is not the same alacrity among our friends, as there lately was among the papists... and those very things which you and I so often laughed at are now seriously and solemnly entertained by certain persons (for we are not consulted), as if the Christian religion could not exist without something tawdry...  Others are seeking after a golden, or, as it rather seems to me, a leaden mediocrity; and are crying out, that the half is better than the whole. (5th letter, undated)
 As the 5th letter reveals, there were many among the Protestants those who desired only limited reforms to the church.  This was to set the stage, as it seems to me,  for a continued struggle within the Church of England for the next 100 years.

On May 20, 1559 Queen Elizabeth signed the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity.  According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, "One of the most striking features of Elizabeth's 1559 Settlement was that it began the Church of England's long march away from Cranmer's eucharistic theology, if only in small details... The clarity of Cranmer's sacramental intentions was undermined by restoring to the communion service the 1549 formulae of administering bread and wine to communicants which he had replaced in 1552... This, the omission of the 'black rubric', and a baffling instruction that the permissible ornaments and vestments of the Church were those in use in the year before the 1549 Prayer Book was authorised" were the backdrop of several more letters by Jewell to Bullinger and Martyr which highlighted the headwinds that he and the true friends of reform faced:
For we have at this time to contend not only with those of our friends, who of late years have fallen away from us, and gone over to the opposite party; who are now opposing us with a bitterness and obstinacy far exceeding that of any common enemy... (Bullinger-May 22, 1559)
 The bishops, rather than abandon the pope, whom they so often abjured, are willing to submit to everything.  Not, however, that they do so for the sake of religion, of which they have none; but for the sake of consistency, which the miserable knaves now choose to call their consciences. (Martyr-August 1, 1559)
She was altogether desirous that you should be all means be invited to England, that, as you formerly tilled, as it were, the university by your lectures, so again you might water it by the same, now it is in so disordered and wretched a condition.  But since then, the deliberations about Saxony and the embassy from Smalcald have put an end to those counsels. (Martyr-November 5, 1559)
Religion among us is in the same state which I have often described to you before.  The doctrine is everywhere most pure, but, as to ceremonies and maskings, there is a little too much foolerly.  That little silver cross of ill-omen origin, still maintains its place in the queen's chapel.  Wretched me! this thing will soon be drawn into a precedent. (November 16, 1559)
There's more to the story of "that little silver cross" of Queen Elizabeth's, but for now it's worth noting those last words of Jewell were prescient in light of the eventual drift that occurred back toward a medieval high church Eucharistic practice among those such as Laud and the Tractarians of the 1800s who birthed the Anglo-Catholic movement.

[all italics added]


The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 4

It's not that the reformation in England didn't resume under Queen Elizabeth.  The question seems to be what was the nature of that reformation.  Whereas religion under King Edward was moving into closer identification with that of the continental reform churches, after Mary and under Elizabeth there was a stepping back.  This wasn't so much a reversal as a change of course.  The doctrines of the gospel had again been fully embraced after 1558, but the nature of the Church in its worship had become frozen in a 1549/1552 time frame.  And this was no mere chance of fate, but rather the direction Elizabeth chose.  According to historian Diarmaid MacColluch, ... the plain fact was that the Supreme Governor would not allow the Edwardian Reformation to proceed on its path, at least if it meant structural change to her Church (Cranmer's Ambiguous Legacy).

As documented in Parts 1, 2 & 3, frustration with the pace and even the direction of reform is clearly seen in the letters of John Jewell.  Having returned from Zurich and soon appointed bishop of Salisbury (1559), he became the chief apologist of the reformation in England.  His must have been a difficult path, for all was not well within this second reformation.  Indeed, at Anglican Prayerbook Churchmanship, our friend Hudson Barton conjectures about that frustration and the subsequent unfolding of events with the rise of Puritanism in Elizabeth's England:
... the returning [Marian] exiles expected Elizabeth to receive the Reformation not as her father had established it but as it had subsequently evolved [under Edward]. When she didn't, the reactionary movement of Puritanism was born.
One such moment that may have contributed to that course of events is found in one of John Jewell's letters quoted in Part 3, where he mentions "that little crucifix" of Queen Elizabeth's. That crucifix was in Elizabeth's private chapel and became the subject of an official disputation in 1560.  Interestingly, the two selected to defend the use of the crucifix were the moderate reformer and Marian exile Richard Cox (an interesting choice as he later refused to preach in her chapel because of the crucifix) and Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker.  Parker, had managed to stay in England under the Catholic Queen Mary, a fact that aggravated some of the more ardent Protestants. I don't hold that as something that should necessarily call in question his commitment to reform, but nonetheless I do find it interesting path to pursue.  The two individuals who were selected to make the case against the crucifix were the Marian exile reformers Edmund Grindal and John Jewell.  Below is a lengthy quote from a letter that Jewell wrote to Peter Vermigli on February 5, 1560 which highlights the tension of that moment:
This controversy about the crucifix is now at its height.  You would scarcely believe to what a degree of insanity some persons, who once had some shew of common sense, have carried upon so foolish a subject.  There is not one of them, however, with you you are acquainted, excepting Cox.  A disputation upon this subject will take place to-morrow.  The moderators will be persons selected by the council.  The disputants on the one side are the archbishop of Canterbury, and Cox; and on the other, Grindal the bishop of London, and myself.  The decision rests with the judges.  I smile, however, when I think with what grave and solid reasons they will defend their little cross.  Whatever be the result, I will write to you more at length when the disputation is over; for the controversy is as yet undecided; yet, as far as I can conjecture, I shall not again write to you as a bishop.  For matters are come to that pass, that either the crosses of silver and tin, which we have everywhere broken in pieces, must be restore, or our bishopricks be relinquished.
Although the outward vestiges of Roman Catholic worship were, by and large, eradicated throughout the realm during the years that followed, it was not so where Elizabeth worshipped; yet another piece of evidence that leads one to question the Supreme Governor's level of commitment to Protestant reform.  And one wonders what her example communicated to those clergy in the Church who were less than enthralled with further reform according to the standard of Scripture:
Although Elizabeth's actual beliefs elude us, we are able to get an indication of them from her attitudes and gestures. Her chapels were conservative - the crucifix was displayed, and she also liked candles and music. She disliked long Protestant sermons, but also expressed displeasure at some Catholic rituals such as the elevation of the host, which implied that she rejected the Catholic belief of transubstantiation. She also did not really approve of the clergy marrying as she expressed on several occasions, but as this was an integral aspect of Protestantism, she had to accept it.
Clearly Elizabeth was a mixed bag.

The above take is consistent with MacColluch's assessment - that Elizabeth's 1559 Settlement... began the Church of England's long march away from Cranmer's eucharistic theology - and I would also add that it indicated a preference, or at least a tolerance, for retaining some remnants of the Roman religion.

[Update: Additional thoughts below from our friend Hudson Barton of Anglicans in the Wilderness, 12/18/2012] -

"The year before the "little cross" incident (1559), Jewell, believing that he was defending a clearly defined Protestant Church of England, had challenged the Romanists at St. Paul's Cross to prove their case from Scripture. By 1560, in Jewell's letter to Vermigli, it appears that he expected his involvement with the disputation over the "little cross" would result in a victory for either the Reformation or the Romanists. In that he was willing at this point in his life to lose his bishoprick for the cause of the Reformation, it appears that he was not willing to say "my Queen for better or worse". He had seen the enemy within ("that little cross"), and appeared ready to defend the Church against that enemy, to see it removed at any cost. But history went in an unexpected direction. The little cross was not removed but only hidden away, and Jewell kept his bishoprick.

"The genius of Elizabeth was that she was able to turn the argument of the "little cross" on its head, convincing Reformers like Jewell that the purity of the Church was not compromised by so small a matter. I believe this was the advice of Whitgift and Parker, to settle with the Queen, to close their eyes and continue about the Church business as if the problem didn't exist. Two years later, in 1562, Jewell published his "Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae", and sure enough the "little cross" had been forgotten. Jewell's Apology became the official defense of the CofE because the establishment knew that it was not a defense of a set of principles, but rather of an institution.

"I am reminded of the Danish fairy tale of "The Princess and the Pea", how a real princess will detect the smallest abnormality in her realm and never rest until it is removed."


The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 5

E. Grindal
The thought behind these series of posts, The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty (hereherehere, and here), is that the nature of the reformation in England was quite different under Queen Elizabeth than that which had been taking place under King Edward and Thomas Cranmer.  That isn't a big news scoop for anyone familiar with the history.  And while some consider that change in a negative light (my view), others do view it favorably.  Yet what is interesting to see is the role that Elizabeth played in moving the Church of England from a church that was reforming according to the Word of God (albeit with fits and starts) to that of a formerly reforming church, one that had begun to settle into a kind of compromised Protestantism; at crucial crossroads succumbing to the views of the Supreme Governor of the Church rather than the teachings of Scripture when it came to certain issues. In my view this is nowhere more evident than the reduced emphasis on and, and at times, even outright hostility toward the preaching of the Word of God after 1559.

State of preaching Pre-Marian:

Arguably, the first major reform enacted in the Church of England under Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was to place in every church an English version of the entire Bible.  Without the Scriptures in the language of the people there could be no reforming of the Church. Without the Word of God central in the Church there would be no biblical preaching to build the Church. It was in the year 1538 that Cromwell gave the directive that the clergy provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

About nine years later in 1547, Cranmer issued the Book of Homilies entitled "Certain Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches."  The need for biblical teaching and preaching in the formerly Roman Catholic churches was great but the number of clergy familiar with the reformational doctrines of the Christian faith were few.  The Book of Homilies was issued as a stop gap solution to this situation.  By publicly reading these sermons clergy could begin to nourish the faith and practice of God's people with the Word of God.

Over the next few years Archbishop Cranmer would bring several leading reformers such as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli to England to help train prospective clergy in the biblical doctrines of the Church.  Vermigli was given the position of Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.  Two years after his appointment he writes to Rudolph Gualter (June 1, 1550):
There is no lack of preachers in London, but throughout the whole kingdom they are very rare... The sheep of the divine pasture, the sheep of God's hand, the sheep redeemed by the blood of Christ, are defrauded of the proper nourishment of the divine word; unless the people be taught, the change of religion will certainly avail them but little. [emphasis added]
Vermigli's words were not only an accurate assessment of the situation, but also foreshadowed the years that were to follow Queen Mary's reign.  The purpose of these doctors of doctrine was to train men who would teach and preach from the pulpit the Scriptural truths regarding salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone.  By the proclamation of Christ in the Word the Church is birthed.  And by the Word of God  preached and taught the Church is reformed, nourished, and built.

Cranmer's path was the natural and logical consequence of his embracing the foundational truth of the Reformation - sola scripturathe supremacy and authority of the Word of God in things pertaining to faith and practice in the Church, as later confessed in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation - Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation...
State of preaching Post-Marian:
Queen Elizabeth I
After the reign of Queen Mary and the restoration of the Protestant Church in England, the need for preachers was indeed dire.  Yet the trajectory of progress going forward in this area was mixed and disappointing. This was in no small part due to the views of the new Supreme Governor of the Church, Queen Elizabeth.  John Jewell expressed his concern (and that of many) in a letter to Vermigli in January 1559:
The queen has forbidden any person, whether papist or gospeller, to preach to the people.  Some think the reason of this to be, that there was at that time only one minister of the word in London, namely, Bentham, whereas the number of papists was very considerable; others, that it was because the people, having heard only one public discourse of Bentham's, began to dispute about ceremonies, some declaring for Geneva, and some for Frankfort.  Whatever it be, I only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God.
And from an April letter of the same year Jewell further highlights the need for preachers of the Word of God:  "... and yet the people everywhere [are]... exceedingly thirsting for the gospel."  He later wrote to Martyr in two letters a year apart of his concern with the state of the schools in which preachers were to be trained and the desperate need for preachers:
Both our universities are now lying in a most wretched state of disorder, without piety, without religion, without a teacher, without any hope of revival.  Many of our leading men... are fixing their thoughts on yourself, and are anxious that you should be invited at the earliest opportunity, in spite of all the German leaguers." (Nov. 16, 1559)
 We are only wanting in preachers; and of these there is a great and alarming scarcity.  The schools are also entirely deserted; so that, unless God look favourably upon us, we cannot hope for any supply in the future.  The existing preachers, who are few in number, those especially who have any ability, are listened to by the people with favour and attention.        (Nov. 6, 1560)
Yet remedying this situation did not necessarily fit comfortably with Queen Elizabeth's vision for the Church.  M. Rosemary O'Day writes,
After Elizabeth's accession the Church in England was in a confused condition. The queen envisaged a politique settlement which, although protestant, was not reformed, thereby enabling her to avoid both international conflict and open internal rebellion. This meant that the established Church must not follow too closely the radical changes in ceremony, doctrine and administration associated with the continental Reformed Churches
Robust biblical preaching under the authority of the Word became a risk to Elizabeth's concept of the Church. Thus preaching, per se, was not desirable in and of itself nor in the best interest of maintaining order and peace in "her" new Church and kingdom.  In fact, her own personal preference regarding a church service was that of infrequent sermons which were to be short and not especially doctrinal.
She herself was accustomed to listen to sermons only in the season of Lent, and on one such occasion had interrupted a sermon of the Dean of St. Paul’s (Nowell), a notable preacher, with the command to desist as the theme was not to her liking. Not surprisingly, the Dean was overwhelmed with confusion. To console him Archbishop Parker took him home to dinner afterwards! (Church Society)
Yet ironically, the pressing need to fill the vast number of vacancies in the office of bishop in 1559 led to the appointment of the only supply available to the new queen - many of the Marian exiles/preachers who had returned from the reformed churches of the continent with a high view of the authority of the Word of God.  Their intention to continue the reforms begun a decade earlier in the Edwardian church was a potential problem to contain.  One of those exiles appointed as a bishop under Queen Elizabeth was Edmund Grindal who would later be selected Archbishop of Canterbury.  Accepting the former office that Cranmer had held, he would clash almost immediately with the Queen over the issue of "prophesyings."  And it was this issue more than any other that revealed the change that had taken place between the Church under Cranmer and that of Elizabeth.
In 1576, Grindal conducted a metropolitan visitation (a sort of survey of standards in the archbishopric) and was shocked by how few ministers preached regularly to their flocks. He decided to try and rectify the problem by encouraging prophesyings. Prophesyings had begun spontaneously in various parts of the South-East c. 1571. They were meetings of clergy in the localities for prayer and sermons followed by mutual criticism and discussions about the state of the church... 
Prophesyings rapidly became very popular, and were often attended by zealous laymen. Elizabeth (who thought that four or five preachers per county were quite enough) saw them as inherently disruptive and a covert attack on royal control of the church...  
Elizabeth wanted prophesyings stopped, but Grindal merely issued orders for regulating their conduct. Elizabeth was furious - particularly when Grindal refused a direct order to suppress them, and wrote her a letter saying that it was his duty to obey God rather than her. She wanted to deprive him immediately of his post as Archbishop but was prevailed on by her Privy Council merely to suspend him until he submitted. He never did. (link here)
To paraphrase a the sixties Dylan song, The times they were a'changing!
To Grindal it seemed natural that the clergy should meet to discuss the scriptures; but with a view of appeasing objections he issued orders that such meetings should be licensed by the bishop and presided over by the archdeacon or his deputy; that only approved persons be permitted to speak, and that all political or personal references be rigidly excluded. This did not satisfy Elizabeth... (Grindal)
The situation had reached a point of crisis for Elizabeth. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes summed up the mindset of Elizabeth this way,
Now, however, matters came to a head. So far from reacting favourably to Grindal’s plan for the regularisation, and thus the retention, of the ‘prophesyings’, Elizabeth gave vent to her displeasure by commanding him to bring about their suppression forthwith. She objected that by attending these gatherings the laity were neglecting their proper affairs and were in danger of having their heads filled with seditious notions. She complained, further, that there were too many preachers, insisting that three or four were sufficient for a county, and that the people needed nothing more than to have the Homilies read to them. The Queen, indeed, laboured under an apparent inability to appreciate the value of biblical preaching not only for the progress of sound religion but also in the interests of promoting good and stable citizenship.
There could be only one ultimate authority in the Church of England and Elizabeth was determined that she would have that final position and not the Word of God as administered by those called and ordained to preach and teach it.  The reformation, at least for the institutional Church of England, was crippled, if not over...

Monday, February 17, 2020

Some random thoughts on Christ, Law, Gospel and Worship...

1. A number a years ago sitting with my wife on a Sunday morning visiting in an evangelical church, I wrote down the following on the bulletin sermon notes insert, concerning modern church services:

When one abandons a reformed Liturgy [referring specifically to Thomas Cranmer's BCP] with its content (which is Christ and Scripture centered), it is difficult, if not impossible to replace it with something that doesn't fall short of a holy worship; a definite problem for the modern Church.

Newer and more relevant is not necessarily more better when it comes to the faith once delivered and to what the Church has been called to as it gathers to worship Christ. One need only read through portions of the Book of Common Prayer (1928 or earlier) to be impressed with this.

Though the old style English is a bit foreign to our modern ear, the weightiness and focus is nonetheless apparent. Here is an excerpt from the Holy Communion (BCP 1662):

O LORD and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

2. William Willimon, a bishop in the United Methodist Church in the U.S., writes concerning the preaching from the pulpit in today's churches:

"Unable to preach Christ and Him crucified, we preach humanity and it improved"

Today, preaching Law and Gospel from Scripture is considered antiquated and something that all too many preachers (and Christians) think only relevant to those congregations of the long forgotten Reformation and not appropriate for our "advanced age." But man's condition hasn't changed. The preaching of Christ and Him crucified has never been fashionable. The Law, rightly presented, diagnoses man as he is - born into Adam's sinful race and willfully alienated from God as an enemy of righteousness... helpless to change or free himself from the bondage of sin. This resonates with the one who hears, as it is consistent with what is the reality within the hearer's conscience. The Gospel presents Christ Jesus as the only propitiation for man's sin and our only means of salvation; a salvation that by God's grace is obtained through faith and repentance in Christ alone; His merit of a holy life lived as man, His loving offering of Himself as the full satisfaction for our sins upon the cross, and His resurrection from the dead being the sole basis of our justification and sanctification before a just God; and that is freely offered to all and received by all who believe in Him. He takes our sin away and then accounts to us His righteousness unto eternal life. This is indeed
good news; and as saints who are yet still sinners we need to hear this constantly.

Saturday, November 23, 2019

Calvin: The Reward of Good Works...

Continuing with the sometime murky doctrine of  sanctification, I want to focus a little on "our good works."  Does God reward the good works of believers?  If so, in what way?  Are believers able to do good works?  The Bible teaches that we are.  Yet, how are we to understand the nature of those good works we do in light of the remnant of sin that still clings to every part of our being? And how
are we to understand the nature of the reward that God bestows upon those good works?  John Calvin, in his commentary on 2 Cor. 5:10, provides some insight:
"That every one may give account..." As the passage relates to the recompensing of deeds, we must notice briefly, that, as evil deeds are punished by God, so also good deeds are rewarded, but for a different reason; for evil deeds are requited with the punishment that they deserve, but God in rewarding good deeds does not look to merit or worthiness. For no work is so full and complete in all its parts as to be deservedly well-pleasing to him, and farther, there is no one whose works are in themselves well-pleasing to God, unless he render satisfaction to the whole law. Now no one is found to be thus perfect. Hence the only resource is in his accepting us through unmerited goodness, and justifying us, by not imputing to us our sins. After he has received us into favor, he receives our works also by a gracious acceptance. It is on this that the reward hinges. There is, therefore, no inconsistency in saying, that he rewards good works, provided we understand that mankind, nevertheless, obtain eternal life gratuitously. [emphasis added]
Calvin's quote amplifies what is taught in the chapter on good works in Westminster Confession of Faith - Of Good Works, 16:5 & 6. 
WCF 16:5. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.
WCF: 16:6. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God's sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

“If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” John Calvin reads with Law/Gospel glasses..

John Calvin writes...
This passage (Matt 19:16-22) was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life. On the contrary, Christ did not take into consideration what men can do, but replied to the question, What is the righteousness of works? or, What does the Law require? And certainly we ought to believe that God comprehended in his law the way of living holily and righteously, in which righteousness is included; for not without reason did Moses make this statement, 
  • He that does these things shall live in them, (Leviticus 18:5;) 
and again, 
  • I call heaven and earth to witness that l have this day showed you life, (Deuteronomy 30:19.)    
We have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by which any man who kept the law perfectly--if there were such a man--would obtain life for himself. But as we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23,) nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness. And therefore Paul lays down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Romans 10:5,) and the righteousness of faith, (Romans 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and the second, in the free grace of Christ. 
Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, (which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to the assistance of faith. I acknowledge, therefore, that, as God has promised the reward of eternal life to those who keep his law, we ought to hold by this way, if the weakness of our flesh did not prevent; but Scripture teaches us, that it is through our own fault that it becomes necessary for us to receive as a gift what we cannot obtain by works. 
If it be objected, that it is in vain to hold out to us the righteousness which is in the law, (Romans 10:5,) which no man will ever be able to reach, I reply, since it is the first part of instruction, by which we are led to the righteousness which is obtained by prayer, it is far from being superfluous; and, therefore, when Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Romans 2:13,) he excludes all from the righteousness of the law.
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

"Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”

When the young man came to Jesus and said, “Good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” our Lord did not answer him by saying, “If thou wilt enter into life believe, have faith in the Son of God, but he said, “If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments.” 

Our Lord, to whom all things are open and known, was well acquainted with the pharisiacal boasting which swelled the heart of this proud justiciary, even before he declared that from his youth he had kept all the commandments. But on our Lord's probing him farther, he discovered his deficiency, and went away sorrowful. 

And this is often the means he takes, when men will be their own saviors, and look for righteousness by the law, he bids them go and keep the commandments; he holds up that mirror to shew them their deformities, and when broken and humbled at the horrible view, instead of threatening, he encourages and comforts them with rich promises of free grace. Then he invites them to lay their burden down, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest; “The spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach liberty to the captive.” &c.

Samuel Bolton, Christian Freedom: pp 83-84

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Thoughts on WLC 32: Salvation Possessed By Faith - Expressed in Obedience

Some thoughts on faith and obedience and the necessity of both for salvation... It is said that once justified through faith in Christ believers then have a title to eternal life.
It is also sometimes said that in order to actually possess that eternal life one must do so by obeying the commands of God. Indeed, obedience is not optional for the justified believer. 
Yet certainly some nuance and a careful understanding of this matter is in order so that one not fall into a "get in by grace, stay in by works" theology. Westminster's Larger Catechism Q/A 32 is often cited to show the necessity or role of obedience as the way believer's possess salvation, and that it does, but not as a "get in by grace and then complete the deal by works" bargain.
WLC Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediatorand life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
Following is a brief break down of Answer 32 into bite size morsels in order to better digest it... (Scripture quotes are those supplied by the divines in the Westminster Larger Catechism). The answer states that

1. God freely provides and offers a Mediator, Jesus Christ, to sinners.
2. God freely provides and offers life and salvation by Jesus Christ.
3. God requires faith in the sinner in order to gain an interest in Christ.
John 3:16, 36. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.… He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name
4. God promises and gives the elect sinner the Holy Spirit who works the required faith in them.
 John 14:16–20. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 
1 Cor. 12:3, 9. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.… to another faith [is given] by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit. Eph. 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God...
5. The Holy Spirit also works all other saving graces in the elect sinner including enabling them to a new holy obedience.
Gal. 5:22–23. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Ezek. 36:27. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Eph. 2:10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.  
6. This new Holy Spirit-enabled obedience is evidence of a true and lively faith in Christ as well as the elect sinner's thankfulness to God for his salvation.
James 2:18, 22. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.… Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
 2 Cor. 5:14–15. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
7. This God given, Holy Spirit-enabled obedience is the path that God has predestined/ordained them to walk in this life as those sinner-belieevers who are saved and being saved.
Eph. 2:10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Titus 2:14. … who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 
Walter Marshall (17th century Puritan) offers some crucial perspective that I think helps inform how to navigate the requirements of faith and obedience so that we can unreservedly and boldly claim that sinners are saved by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone -
"This persuasion of our future enjoyment of everlasting happiness cannot tend to licentiousness, if we understand well that perfect holiness is a necessary part of that happiness, and that though we have a title to that happiness by free justification and adoption, yet we must go to the possession of it in a way of holiness (1 John 3:1-3). Neither is it legal or mercenary to be moved by this persuasion, seeing the persuasion itself is not gotten by the works of the law, but by free grace through faith (Gal. 5:5)... 
"1. By faith we have the actual enjoyment and possession of Christ Himself, and not only of remission of sin, but of life, and so of holiness. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17). We live to God; and yet not we, but Christ lives in us by the faith of the Son of God (Gal. 2:19, 20). He that believes on the Son of God has the Son and everlasting life that is in Him (1 John 5:12, 13; John 3:36 ). He that hears Christ's word, and believes on Him that sent Christ, has everlasting life and is passed from death to life (John 5:24). These texts express clearly such a faith as I have described. Therefore the efficiency or operation of faith, in order to the enjoyment of Christ and His fullness, cannot be the procurement of a bare right or title to this enjoyment; but rather it must be an entrance to it, and taking possession of it. We have our access and entrance by faith into that grace of Christ in which we stand (Rom. 5:2). 
"2. The Scripture plainly ascribes this effect to faith: that by it we receive Christ, put Him on, are rooted and grounded in Him; and also that we receive the Spirit, remission of sins and an inheritance among them which are sanctified (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:6, 7; Gal. 3:14; Acts 26:18). And the Scripture illustrates this receiving by the similitude of eating and drinking: He that believes on Christ drinks the living water of His Spirit (John 7:37-39). Christ is the bread of life; His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. And the way to eat and drink it is to believe in Christ and, by so doing, we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, and we have everlasting life (John 6:35, 47, 48, 54-56). How can it be taught more clearly that we receive Christ Himself properly into our souls by faith, as we receive food into our bodies by eating and drinking, and that Christ is as truly united to us in this way as our food when we eat or drink it? So that faith cannot be a condition to procure a mere right or title to Christ, no more than eating or drinking procures a mere right or title to our food; but it is rather an instrument to receive it, as the mouth that eats and drinks the food."
Walter MarshallThe Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (pp. 27, 52-54). Kindle Edition. 
[emphasis added]

Bottom line: Salvation is not possessed by obedience after faith, but by God's grace through faith expressed in obedience.

[updated from 2016]

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Sanctification “Makes Us Righteous?”

Always relevant...

In summing up the differences between justification and sanctification, Kevin DeYoung in an online essay at The Gospel Coalition writes:  "One reckons us righteous; the other makes us righteous. One allows for no increase or degrees; the other expects progress and growth. One is a declaration of God about us, the other a work of God in us."  

I'm having difficulty with the description of sanctification as that which "makes us righteous."  I think, at best, it is a confusing phrase.  When Kevin writes that sanctification "expects progress and growth", I take it he is referring back to the phrase makes us righteous.  So, is sanctification a process of being made more and more righteous?  One hang-up with that construction is that it implies one can be partially righteous.  Kind of like the oxymoron of a woman being "almost pregnant."  She either is or she isn't.  I don't see how there can be such a thing as partial righteousness.  If a work is righteous then it is without any imperfection or impurity.  And in this life that will never be the case as taught in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 78. Whence ariseth the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
A. The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.

Now what I am not saying is that in response to the gospel believers do not exhibit good works in their lives or grow in those godly characteristics that are called "the fruit of the Spirit."  Clearly where true faith exists there will be evidence (good works) of a new heart and right-will born of the Spirit, works that are nonetheless imperfect (not righteous in and of themselves).  A new direction unto righteousness will be there, evidence of our faith in Christ.  This, of course, is the point of Martin Luther's quote, "We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone."

But I don't think one should say that the good works of a believer are evidence of a growing or progressing righteousness within the believer which seems to be a logical inference from the above definition of sanctification.  Rather, aren't good works evidence of a true and lively faith, as taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the WCF and the WLC:

XII. Of Good Works.
ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

WCF 16.2 states, "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith...." The WLC speaks in a similar way, of "the good works that are the fruits" of the "faith [that] justifies a sinner in the sight of God...."

I take the above to be simply saying that good works are to a lively faith what fruit is to a tree.  And it is faith that apprehends the righteousness of Christ, "But the righteous shall live by faith."  John Calvin wrote, "In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause" (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote).  So I don't think we can say that good works are evidence of a progressing righteousness within us.  Instead, they are evidence of  having found complete salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.  It is all His accomplishment.  But hasn't God foreordained believers to be conformed to the image of His Son?.  Yes, His work.  And aren't we exhorted "to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work"?... indeed, but isn't that fruit in every good work still imperfect?

Sanctification is a "work of God in us."  Yet, by defining this work as that which makes us righteous, I find my eyes deceptively drawn away from Christ's provision of pardon and perfect obedience on my behalf to a mixed-motive heart inside of me.  Inevitably, I'm searching within for evidence of that which supposedly should be produced by sanctification.  For what I long for is true righteousness in me.  But it is not to be found there, unless of course, I entertain a weak view of sin and righteousness, which is just another way of saying it isn't there.  And where has faith gone?  It has been assigned a bystander role as I vainly work to progress along a righteousness-making path.  To the HC:

Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.
Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?
Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace.

The acceptance of our imperfect works as righteous is not of their deservings but of God's grace.  The already but not yet formulation is applicable here.  We are already accounted righteous for Christ's sake, but in this life not yet righteous... whether partially or in whole.  "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God(1 Cor. 5:21).

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. 
(1 John 3:2-3)

There neither is, nor ever was, in the world, nor ever shall be, the least dram of holiness, but what, flowing from Jesus Christ, is communicated by the Spirit, according to the truth and promise of the gospel. (John Owen)

[originally posted August 20011]