Credentialed in Mercy

What are your credentials in the world?  What is it that commends you or gives you confidence in the eyes of others?  What accomplishments... awards... recognition of excellence?  For the vast majority of humankind the answer is silence and a shrug of the shoulder.  Nothing really of note. Sometimes just the opposite.  For most of us it's just, more or less, getting up in the morning and facing whatever life presents.  Trying to earn enough to provide food and shelter... taking care of the basics, and often not as well as we would like.  Working the fields, as it were, to bring forth a yield.  Struggling under that ever-present curse of our father Adam:  cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you... (Gen.3:17b-18a).

How about your Christian pedigree?  What can you point to in your Christian life that's left a lasting mark?  I know, not really a question Christians should be asking of ourselves, let alone listing our so-called good works for God!  But, being the fallen creatures we are, too often we do list those things somewhere in the inner inventory of our self-image. Alternatively establishing self-validation or not.  Are you a pastor of a growing church?   A Christian scholar who is not only published but read?  A missionary who has left the comforts of home and brought souls to Christ?  A faithful elder who has helped guide the sheep of Christ through many dangers over the years?  Again, the larger percentage of the people of God have no church ministry or Phd. in theology.  And even those that do still, to a large degree, find more thorns and thistles in their labors than not.

OK then...  Where am I heading?  Simply that accomplishments in this life are ephemeral.  To glory in them, if you have them, is pouring water into broken cisterns.  And to lament the lack of them is just the flip side of that coin.  "If only this... then my Christian life would be worthwhile."  It's these thoughts that came to my mind this morning as I read the familiar verses in Philippians 3.  And what so struck me was the apostle Paul's words at the close of the letter.  He first lists his credentials according to the flesh, he states that he counts them but rubbish for Christ's sake.  Nothing to see here... just move along.  He then states why - that he may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of [his] own (accomplishments to glory in)... but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith... to apprehend that for which Christ apprehended Paul.  Glorious and inspiring words.

But it was Paul's closing admonition that so caught my attention.  After all the high and purposeful words of pressing on to the upward call, etc (and who among us lives up to those words?)... he writes - But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  Of great or small accomplishment... of many works or few... a Christian of Christians or just one of the bruised reeds struggling and plodding along.  The only credential under heaven recognized by God is the one that levels mankind, declaring all need saving.  In this life we don't graduate from that status.  Sinners we are, every day, and that alone qualifies us for the Savior.  The very best credential anyone can have is that of God's unmerited grace and mercy toward sinners.  And thus, through faith, we wait with a sure hope for the fullness of our salvation... for our Savior to appear, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Cranmer, Continental Reformer?

I think it was Anglican in the wilderness, Hudson Barton (though I may be mistaken), who posed the question of whether Thomas Cranmer would have identified more with the theology and practice of the Marian exiles and Puritans or that of Queen Elizabeth and her Church as constituted and guided under the Settlement during her forty-some year reign.  If the former is true then it lends credible support to the case that upon Elizabeth's accession the reformation of the Church of England came to an unexpected end.  It's the view of many that, though the battle for further biblical reforms continued within and without the official Church, institutionally the Church had become essentially molded as an uncomfortable composite of the Henrician and Edwardian periods.

Ashley Null, arguably the foremost scholar on the theology of Thomas Cranmer, adds some of his insights to the question in a talk given at St Antholin, the text of which can be found at the Church Society:

In such a venerable lecture series, founded to be the wellspring of nonconformity in England, what could be a more unexpected topic than the man Thomas Cranmer. Who, more than he, was the public face of both Edwardian Erastianism and Edwardian Liturgy. Is not Cranmer reported to have said at the coronation of the boy-king Edward, ʻYour majesty is Godʼs vice-gerent and Christʼs vicar within your own dominions, and to see, with your predecessor Josiah, God truly worshippedʼ?  Has not liturgical scholarship proved right that memorable jibe of John Field, the London field marshall of Elizabethan Puritan agitation, that Cranmerʼs prayer books were ʻculled and picked out of that popish dunghill, the mass bookʼ?  Although Foxe did his best to enlist Cranmer as the true ʻSt Thomas of Canterburyʼ because of his death under Mary, the polity and liturgy he bequeathed represented to Puritans all that was not blessed in the Church of England, all that still needed changing. What does he and the founders of our lectureship have to do with one another?

 Much, for they were all adherents of Reformed theology. While this has not been the conventional portrait of Cranmer for over a century, recent studies have confirmed Cranmerʼs basic agreement with that Southern strain of continental Protestantism that became known as Reformed, at least as it was emerging during his lifetime. The theological stream which ran so fast through St Antholinʼs did not spring up in England only upon the return of the Marian exiles, but in Cranmerʼs day and by Cranmerʼs encouragement. The movement grew and adapted—so much so that subsequent generations of Churchman historians have failed to recognise Cranmer as one of their soteriological progenitors. Yet the blessed personal change sought by Puritans for their family, friends and flock Cranmer also desired for the elect of England of his era. Conversion from sin to communion with God was a favourite Puritan theme, and nothing was closer to Cranmerʼs own heart; consequently, he enshrined his Reformed understanding of the process in the formularies he bequeathed to the Church of England. Those wishing to find Anglican legitimacy for the Puritan approach to the cure of the English soul need look no further than the pioneering work of Thomas Cranmer himself.

In his introduction to the Memoir of the Life and Writings of Thomas Cartwright, Rev. B. Brook writes concerning the early stages of the English Reformation and the trajectory of Thomas Cranmer visa-vis the Continental reformers:

By the introduction of printing, the circulation of the Bible in English, and other important occurrences in the reign of King Henry VIII., better principles obtained access to the minds of the people, and the light of the glorious gospel spread in every direction. This, however, was not the time of completing the Reformation. Henry was as much the pope of England, as the pontiff was of Rome; and popery, under another head, still triumphed in its most obnoxious forms. Though Henry's conduct was tragically oppressive and severe, yet, at the suggestion of Archbishop Cranmer, one of his last acts was to reform certain papistical observances.  In the reign of King Edward VI., the Reformation began to shine with additional splendour; and Christianity, which had been so long obscured, was expected to appear in its native brightness, and spread its benign influence over all the land...   

In the reign of King Edward VI., the Reformation began to shine with additional splendour; and Christianity, which had been so long obscured, was expected to appear in its native brightness, and spread its benign influence over all the land...  

Archbishop Cranmer, denominated a "great Scripturist," cherished deep commiseration for the people, maintained that the holy Scriptures constituted the only standard of Reformation, treating the decrees of councils, and the traditions of men, with comparative inattention. "From the word of God," said Cranmer," princes may learn how to govern their subjects, and subjects learn how to obey their princes; and all persons may learn that faith and worship which God requires of them."  The venerable primate, adopting this scriptural policy, was anxious to see the church entirely freed from the remnants of popery; and addressing the convocation, "he exhorted the clergy to give themselves to the study of the Scriptures, and to consider seriously what things were in the church that needed reformation; that so they might throw out all the popish trash that was not yet cast out." 

Cranmer and the Archbishop of York, with other bishops and divines, declared that, in the apostolic churches, the office of bishop and pastor was the same; and that in those times the members of the churches usually elected their own officers. Thirteen bishops and numerous other dignitaries subscribed that, in the New Testament, there was no distinction of degrees, except only those of bishops or pastors and deacons. The English Reformers recognised the foreign churches, though far from being episcopalian, as true churches of Jesus Christ, and invited a number of continental protestants to assist the Reformation in this country; who were instantly employed in ministerial functions, without the least regard to episcopal ordination, or the popish doctrine of apostolical succession. 

The last highlighted part of the quote regarding the equivalency of bishop and pastor in the apostolic churches is the same understanding that can be found in many of the writings of the early church fathers such as Augustine.

Christ as the living food, the gospel in the Supper

John Calvin, from his Institutes of Religion: 4.17.4-5

4. Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever — I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality, he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption. 

5. It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ would not have not been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to he crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates.

The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty Part 5

E. Grindal

The thought behind these series of posts, The English Reformation: Glass Half Empty (here, here, here, 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 no where 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 scriptura, the 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 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...

Not "only" Justified, we are Sanctified by grace

Our whole salvation is by the grace of God in Christ alone.  John Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:10 -

10. For we are his work. By setting aside the contrary supposition, he proves his statement, that by grace we are saved, -- that we have no remaining works by which we can merit salvation; for all the good works which we possess are the fruit of regeneration. Hence it follows, that works themselves are a part of grace.     

When he says, that "we are the work of God," this does not refer to ordinary creation, by which we are made men. We are declared to be new creatures, because, not by our own power, but by the Spirit of Christ, we have been formed to righteousness. This applies to none but believers. As the descendants of Adam, they were wicked and depraved; but by the grace of Christ, they are spiritually renewed, and become new men. Everything in us, therefore, that is good, is the supernatural gift of God. The context explains his meaning. We are his work, because we have been created, -- not in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, -- not to every kind of life, but to good works.   

What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God?  Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostle's words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are God's work, and that everything good in us is his creation; by which he means that the whole man is formed by his hand to be good. It is not the mere power of choosing aright, or some indescribable kind of preparation, or even assistance, but the right will itself, which is his workmanship; otherwise Paul's argument would have no force. He means to prove that man does not in any way procure salvation for himself, but obtains it as a free gift from God. The proof is, that man is nothing but by divine grace. Whoever, then, makes the very smallest claim for man, apart from the grace of God, allows him, to that extent, ability to procure salvation.     

Created to good works. They err widely from Paul's intention, who torture this passage for the purpose of injuring the righteousness of faith. Ashamed to affirm in plain terms, and aware that they could gain nothing by affirming, that we are not justified by faith, they shelter themselves under this kind of subterfuge. "We are justified by faith, because faith, by which we receive the grace of God, is the   commencement of righteousness; but we are made righteous by regeneration, because, being renewed by the Spirit of God, we walk in good works."  In this manner they make faith the door by which we enter into righteousness, but imagine that we obtain it by our works, or, at least, they define righteousness to be that uprightness by which a man is formed anew to a holy life. I care not how old this error may be; but they err egregiously who endeavor to support it by this passage.     

We must look to Paul's design. He intends to shew that we have brought nothing to God, by which he might be laid under obligations to us; and he shews that even the good works which we perform have come from God.  Hence it follows, that we are nothing, except through the pure exercise of his kindness. Those men, on the other hand, infer that the half of our justification arises from works. But what has this to do with Paul's intention, or with the subject which he handles? It is one thing to inquire in what righteousness consists, and another thing to follow up the doctrine, that it is not from ourselves, by this argument, that we have no right to claim good works as our own, but have been formed by the Spirit of God, through the grace of Christ, to all that is good.  When Paul lays down the cause of justification, he dwells chiefly on this point, that our consciences will never enjoy peace till they rely on the propitiation for sins. Nothing of this sort is even alluded to in the present instance. His whole object is to prove, that,     

"by the grace of God, we are all that we are."   (1 Corinthians 15:10)     

Which God hath prepared...  Beware of applying this, as the Pelagians do, to the instruction of the law; as if Paul's meaning were, that God commands what is just, and lays down a proper rule of life. Instead of this, he follows up the doctrine which he had begun to illustrate, that salvation does not proceed from ourselves. He says, that, before we were born, the good works were prepared by God; meaning, that in our own strength we are not able to lead a holy life, but only so far as we are formed and adapted by the hand of God. Now, if the grace of God came before our performances, all ground of boasting has been taken away. Let us carefully observe the word prepared. On the simple ground of the order of events, Paul rests the proof that, with respect to good works, God owes us nothing. How so? Because they were drawn out of his treasures, in which they had long before been laid up; for whom he called, them he justifies and regenerates.    

Note: I think the word regenerates in the last sentence may best be understood as sanctifies.

From the Conclusion of John Fesko’s book, Justification:

Dr. Fesko drives the nail home in Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine by John Fesko:

If Christ is the last Adam, and he is the fountainhead of the age to come, of the eschaton, then the justification pronounced over those who place their faith in him is eschatological, final, and irreversible. This means that the verdict from the final judgment on the last day has been declared in the present. Justification does not merely restore the sinner to the potentially defectible state of the first Adam only to face probation once again. Or, in simpler terms, justification does not merely return us to the garden. Rather, noting the inherently eschatological nature of justification tells us that Christ has performed the work for us and that we enter the eternal state by faith alone in him; by faith, we are propelled into the indefectible state of the last Adam. (p. 409)

Lastly, it is the nature of Adam's probation in the garden that causes many to see the importance of the law-gospel hermeneutic in Scripture. The law is not, contrary to popular opinion, an evangelical aid given to man after his sins are forgiven to assist him in his journey of moral transformation that culminates in his declaration righteousness at the final judgment. Rather, the law represents the requirement of perfect obedience, the requirement that God demanded of Adam, and later of Israel at Sinai. It was the requirement that all failed to meet, save the last Adam. Therefore, the law brings those same demands that God placed upon Adam, his disobedient son, in the garden-temple; upon Israel his stiff-necked firstborn son at the foot of Sinai; and upon Jesus, the Son of man, God’s only begotten Son in whom he was well pleased, who was born under the law to redeem us from its curse. The demands of the law therefore drive sinners to look outside of themselves to the perfect obedience of another, to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our faith is extraspective, not introspective. It is the covenant of works that enables us to see that if Adam could not be justified by his works though he was sinless and righteous, we cannot be justified by our works in any sense. Only the perfect obedience of the last Adam justifies us. (p. 411)

[emphasis added]

the given life: Holiness, Obedience, and Gospel Enthusiasts {a review of De Young's The Hole in Our Holiness}

From Laura Rosenkranz's review of Kevin DeYoung's book:

It seems to me that DeYoung's audience (and maybe I am wrong about this) is primarily made up of conservative Christians, readers of The Gospel Coalition blogs, those who lean toward or are Reformed, those who are trying to answer the question, "How do the sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Christo of the gospel relate to the holiness of God and my sanctification?"

These repeated moments of confusion in The Hole in Our Holiness become a shadowy straw man, subtly calling into question the teaching of those who preach and teach "the unimpeachable nature of our justification." It would be a shame for anyone to think he should be concerned or suspicious of bold, unapologetic, unqualified gospel proclamation.

My concern is that those who fear that the gospel can be overemphasized and should be balanced, maybe even limited by law will find fuel for their worry in DeYoung's words, instead of realizing that these two realities for the Christian--that we are freely justified by faith as a gift AND that God calls believers to lives of obedience and holiness--are complementary truths and gain their meaning and power in relation to each other not in opposition to each other.

Read the whole thing here:
the given life: Holiness, Obedience, and Gospel Enthusiasts {a review of De Young's The Hole in Our Holiness}

Sanctification, Sin, and Old Guys...

My friend, Gerda Inger, sent me this wonderful quote of John Owen's (Overcoming Sin and Temptation).  It's from the web site The Old Guys, a blog with the self-described purpose of putting "others in touch with helpful quotes, books, and resources concerning Christian life and thought from a specific group of people…. The Old Guys." 

To mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts. It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished. There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. He would so kill it that it should never move nor stir anymore, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at. Now, though doubtless there may, by the Spirit and grace of Christ, a wonderful success and eminency of victory against any sin be attained, so that a man may have almost constant triumph over it, yet an utter killing and destruction of it, that it should not be, is not in this life to be expected.

~John Owen~

This understanding of Owen's dovetails nicely with another quote that was posted today by Scott Clark's at The Heidelblog, that of another old guy - Caspar Olevianus:

The Son of God, having been appointed by God as Mediator of the covenant, becomes the guarantor on two counts: 1) He shall satisfy for the sins of all those whom the Father has given him; 2) He shall also bring it to pass that they, being planted in him, shall enjoy freedom in their consciences and from day to day be renewed in the image of God.

It seems to me that the older reformed writers were quite comfortable with the idea that Christians, who seek to live godly lives, still continue to sin. One of their main concerns appears to be with clearly communicating the benefits of the gospel, as in the quote above; the provisions of Christ’s work in order to comfort the conscience (wouldn’t need that if sin weren’t a reoccurring reality) and the truth that it is God who sanctifies by His grace. To me, these dual provisions are indispensable, as well as extremely encouraging, given our weaknesses/struggles and given that the law of God is still the moral standard required of God’s people – “Be ye perfect, therefore, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48)

“For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren…” (Heb.2:11)

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."

Sanctification & Justification: Separate but Equal?

Or something like that. There continues to be quite a bit of confusion (always has been - always will, I suppose) on this topic, but this post of Tullian's Here is really good, helping to clarify the relationship between these two doctrines.  Also our friend, Dr. R. Scott Clark is clearing away much of the fog Here and here.

It seems to me that part of the confusion is the notion that when talking about our sanctification we shouldn’t be talking about our justification, otherwise… otherwise what? If we bring justification into the mix that will undermine our sanctification? But wait! Isn’t it fair to say that our justification is the very ground upon which we live and walk the sanctified life? So, as I am sanctified I can never leave my justification (what Christ Jesus secured for me on the cross ) anymore then when I walk to the store I can somehow leave the ground of the sidewalk. Not a perfect analogy, but… Every sanctified movement rests upon the ground of our justification.

The old hymn reads, On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand… I don’t think this speaks of conversion, but living the Christian life. Calvin concisely puts it this way:

“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.” (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)

There's no work of ours sanctified except by the blood of Jesus shed for us (Heb. 10). His finished work then is the basis by which our good works, with their yet remaining imperfections, are purified; causing them (and us) to be acceptable to God by grace through faith in Christ.

Update [12-16-2012]:
Eph. 2:8-10. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Salvation is completely of God, by God’s grace, through faith alone in Christ alone. None of our own doings contribute to this gift from God. Not one of our best works adds to the saving work that Jesus completed on the cross for His people. Yet we work. And in sanctification, we do acts of goodness that are pleasing and acceptable in Christ to God; works He prepared way back in the counsel of His will that we should walk in. So there is effort, there is resisting sin, there is walking in new paths of righteousness, loving God and neighbor. But those efforts are the fruit of His Spirit, the ordained result of an already graciously and completely secured salvation in Christ Jesus for us. Thus we have no boast or glorying except in the Lord.

We are thankful for those who, like Tullian and Scott Clark, unashamedly and clearly proclaim the gospel of God; “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Rom. 1:16)