Archive for February, 2009
Church History Teasers (Part 8): Luther ‘Concerning Christian Liberty’
Brief Outline of ‘Concerning Christian Liberty’
Reason for Writing: Luther tries to defend two seemingly contradictory propositions, that we have freedom in Christ, and that we have the duty to serve our fellow man (faith and works).
1.) The Foundation: As an introduction of sorts, Luther presents himself as a viable candidate to write on such things by humbly appealing to his experience attained after being ‘vexed’ by various temptations.
2.) Proposition One: The Christian man is the most free Lord of all, and subject to none.
The Inward Man: Justification by faith
a. Works cannot bring about salvation: Good works can be performed by any impious person.
b. Faith alone without works justifies, sets free, and saves.
c. Works cannot glorify God, but can be done to the glory of God.
“Our faith, the effect of which is, not that we should be careless or lead a bad life, but that no one should need the law or works for justification and salvation.
3.) Proposition Two: The Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.
The Outward Man: Sanctification produces good works
a. Good works do not make the man good, but a good man does good works.
b. A man’s works arise from his faith (good works) or unbelief (bad works).
c. The Christian should exhibit faith working through love and joy.
Two Warnings:
a. A Warning to the Clergy
b. A Warning to every Christian: To walk the ‘middle path’.
Conclusion: Condemn the belief in works and establish justification by faith as the true way of salvation and proper application of works.
‘Concerning Christian Liberty’
Luther begins this treatise by laying down two propositions concerning Christian liberty and servitude, which are illustrated in this sentence; “a Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone”. Therefore, Luther looks at the two parts of man, inward and outward as representative of faith and works.
Luther first deals with the subject of the ‘inward man’, and argues that no salvific profit comes from works, even an impious person can be adorned with good works. The only thing necessary and profitable for man is justification and Christian liberty. These two necessary things cannot be known without the word of God. The word of God is divided into two parts, precepts and promises. The precepts guide us in morality. The promises of God are full of goodness and saturated by virtues in that we can be sure that our faith will not be invalidated. Luther argues that when one begins to believe the promises of God, they learn all at once that they are utterly guilty of being unable to fulfill the precepts completely. So it is faith alone that justifies and saves individuals.
Christian liberty is this, our faith, that no one needs the law or works as a means to salvation. Works should not be done to glorify God, although they can be done to the glory of God. From this argument one should see that the Christian man is free from all things, in the sense that justification and salvation are gifts from God, and not obtained by works. In fact, Luther argues that works can even be harmful if performed as justifying one towards salvation.
Luther’s second section of this work examines the ‘outer man’, which should be associated with a Christian’s servant-hood. While the inner man is being conformed to God, and delighting itself in Christ, the outer man begins to serve with joy. Once a person realizes what God has done, then that person is compelled to do good works. To balance this encouragement out Luther adds that, “good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works.” When a man performs works, it does not arise from his own goodness or badness, but from his faith or unbelief.
It would seem that some would argue that one could be judged according to his works as seen by men, but in the sight of God one is judged according to faith. Therefore, one must be on guard at all times against the vain confidence or presumption of being justified by outward works. Luther also warns the reader from distorting ones sense of freedom in order indulge the flesh, which He calls ‘an occasion of license’.
The Christian life is marked by faith working through love. When a man applies himself with joy and love to his works he is satisfied in the fullness of his own faith. No Christian lives in himself, but in Christ and too his neighbor. It is not from works that we are set free by our faith in Christ, but our belief in Christ will justify us before God. One of Luther’s main aims in this piece was to condemn belief in works, and establish a right view of salvation by faith alone, in Christ alone. Christian freedom was being free from the idea that good works were a means to salvation, yet in Christian freedom one would exercise good works in light of the grace God had shown in salvation.
Part 2: Athanasius ‘On the Incarnation’
Part 3: Saint Benedict ‘The Rule’
Part 4: Gregory’s ‘Pastoral Rule’
1 comment February 25, 2009
Thoughts on the “Fishers of Men”
“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” - Jesus
Jesus’ words in this sentence have haunted me for the past few days. The sentence is short but profound; one scholar rightly calls it the most “condensed parable.” What did Jesus mean- “I will make you fishers on men”?
Historically we understand that all people in Jewish Palestine depended on fish products for many things. Fishermen were central to the economy, and thus made a pretty good living in the standards of their culture.
The context of this particular “condensed parable” if found in the book of Matthew. Jesus approaches Simon (Peter) and Andrew who are fishing and calls them to “follow” him. He does the same for James and John, the sons of Zebedee who were also fishing. This idea of “following” a teacher meant to literally walk behind him, learn from him- every day.
Jesus calls them to abandon their ordinary occupation and follow him full time. In other words, “leave behind your good jobs”- and for James and John, “leave behind the promise of owning the family business.” What makes this calling even more radical is that such abandonment would have surely brought dishonor upon them from their whole community.
The metaphor follows naturally- “I will make you fishers of men.” Jesus was talking to men who were fishermen by trade. Something they most likely learned from their own earthly fathers. For these four men this call reaches beyond their human relationships and dependence on occupation.
This calling is something all together different. I agree with Leon Morris, who writes “Dietrich puts it well: It is no longer a question of taking fish from the lake, but drawing men up out of the abyss of sin and death.”
This was not only a call to learn, but an active participation in bringing other men into contact with the living God of the universe. Of those men who were called, who would not immediately abandon the vain occupations of this world to follow the eternal God on his redemptive mission?
There was nothing special about these four, but God called them to start the greatest movement that humanity would ever see. This is how God’s grace works.
Add comment February 19, 2009
Thoughts on the Holiness of God and Evangelism
In my opinion there seems to be little attention to God’s chief moral attribute – holiness – in evangelism training and studies.
I might go as far as saying that some Christians have never given much thought to how God’s holiness specifically impacts our evangelism. But, the Gospel (the good news that is proclaimed or witnessed to) is primarily a message about God, not man. One of the foundational theological realities for exposing our need for the Gospel is that God is holy and man is sinful.
There seems to be very little material on the topic of God’s holiness in current readings on evangelism, at least the ones I have read. It’s there, but its brief. There is always material on the doctrine of human sinfulness (in some sense or another), but I would see sinfulness as understood in light of God’s holiness. When considering the body of material that I am familiar with, which is very limited, Lewis Drummond provided the most thorough treatment of the theological issues pertaining to evangelism in his work The Word of the Cross. Yet Drummond only treated God’s holiness briefly. Drummond makes the concise but important observation that God’s “holiness makes Him the absolute standard of Himself.” This standard not only justifies God’s wrath in that He abhors sin and evil, it also makes us aware of our need of the Gospel. Drummond states that “wrath grows out of the self-consistent nature of God.” In light of God’s holiness “forgiveness of sin becomes the basic need of all people.”
Personally I agree with Drummond’s statement that God’s holiness makes Him the absolute standard of Himself, but I wish he would have clearly shown how this makes claim on individuals in evangelism. Communicating God’s holiness is essentially communicating that He is qualitatively and radically different from his creation. Out of God’s holiness Drummond mentions four qualities that surface, God is righteous, God is just, God is wrathful, and God is good. Each of these qualities acts in perfect unity. God is consistent. God is one. It is helpful to clarify when different attributes of God are emphasized, but it must be stressed that God is not divided. In other words, we can guarantee that in everything God does He exhibits each these qualities in perfect unity as a reflection of His perfect holiness.
How does the holiness of God reveal a need for the Gospel? I think it is important to show that man is completely inconsistent in terms of morality. For example, how is it that man (in a universal sense) can in one moment exhibit qualities of goodness towards others, and in another perform completely unjust acts of cruelty? At one point we can desire vengeance and execute our anger in an unjust way, but when we witness injustice in the world we desire things to be made right. I think Will Metzger makes this point well in his book on evangelism Tell the Truth, he argues that “when people are able to see a reason for the human paradox, they may begin to admit sin is in their nature and a radical solution is therefore needed.” The reality of such inconsistency at the very least reveals an underlying problem in humanity, if not an inner desire to see this tension eradicated by good. Theologically a correct understanding of the human condition is directly tied to the holiness of God. “Our evangelism needs to stress a God of holiness.” But, how is it that man held accountable to this holy God?
J.I. Packer devotes little space to developing this thought in his classic work Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, but what he says is helpful. His observation is that “the Gospel starts by teaching us that we, as creatures, are absolutely dependent on God, and that He, as Creator, has an absolute claim on us.” Our accountability to God was established in creation. God as our creator wrote His law on our hearts. In this way God lovingly established the right way to live, and it is necessary that we measure ourselves by those requirements. In creation, God established a moral order that reflected his own perfect moral nature. Essentially, the law is a reflection of God’s holiness by which He moves against evil. In other words, the law is the revelation of God’s holiness. The moral order that is applied to humanity holds us accountable to this holy God. If we do not sufficiently emphasize God’s holiness in our evangelism, God’s grace loses its intended impact.
Again, Metzger seemed the most helpful when it came to taking a theological truth and making specific application to evangelism practice. He writes, “to admit I am sinful in my nature (not just that I make mistakes or am imperfect), and by simply not loving God (vertical relationship), I have offended his holiness, making me liable for punishment.” The law is a tutor, revealing God’s holiness and our need for the Gospel. While the law is powerless to convert, it is essential to convict.
How else can we show God’s holiness as essential to and in our evangelism?
2 comments February 12, 2009
Church History Teasers (Part 7): Erasmus ‘In Praise of Folly’
Brief Outline of ‘In Praise of Folly’
1. Introduction: Reason for Writing.
To Thomas Moore, in order “to resolve something of our common studies”.
2. On ‘Folly’: The Mythological Character.
Erasmus explains Folly’s “lineage, education, and companions”.
3. Defending Folly’s Deity: Her Self-Love.
Erasmus illustrates the role of Folly in the relationships of men. The illustrations draw on the necessity of self-love and the virtues of foolishness.
4. On ‘folly’: A Broad and Sweeping Critical Analysis.
Erasmus illustrates and provides a critical analysis of the foolishness of men. Erasmus launches into a full scale discourse on the weakness and strength of folly (as it relates to men and their relationship with one another).
5. On ‘those who exercise folly’: Specific Application: Certain Positions and Dispositions.
Erasmus specifically critiques those who are blinded by their folly, in two senses. There is a positive blindness (foolishness of belief in the transcendental reality), and a negative blindness (foolishness of sole focus on the earthly reality).
6. On Christian ‘foolishness’: A Distinction Between Foolishness.
Erasmus encourages the Christian to depend on the wisdom of God, which equates to foolishness to other men. Erasmus provides a good ‘check’ for Christians to be ‘in this world but not of this world’.
‘In Praise of Folly’
Erasmus work ‘In Praise of Folly’ attempts to warn his contemporaries of attempting to ‘be wise beyond their own conditions’. Moving in and out of a satirical fantasy, and his own personal voice, Erasmus uses the mythological character Folly, in representation of the trait of folly often spoken of in Biblical texts. Using these varied literary devices, Erasmus offers a clear and moving analysis of the classes ‘wise men’ and ‘fools’.
In developing a critical analysis of the society Erasmus found himself in, he had one goal in mind – to purify the religious sect of their pride of position. Erasmus was disillusioned with the state of the church. Yet Erasmus also offers a critique of secular academics in seeking to redeem culture.
The character Folly was consumed with self-love, which impelled her to seek praise. Folly claims to be ‘man’s greatest patron’. Interestingly enough, this mythological character was nursed by ‘Drunkenness and Ignorance’. Even more, Folly claims to have followers such as Flattery, Laziness, Oblivion and Pleasure. Moving in and out of satire, Erasmus is able to bring mythological features home with real world application with his ‘real voice’.
To name a few, Erasmus speaks of the logicians and sophists who gain their laughs and reap the benefit of others folly. Claiming to have ‘mastered all’, they circle each other in their blind conjectures about inexplicable matters. Yet Erasmus saves his most piercing analysis for the ‘divines’. He claims that the superstitious divines explicate the most hidden of mysteries according to their own fancy. In explaining the mysteries of the Bible, the ‘Theologians’ seek to suit their won tastes. Erasmus gives a similar caricature of the ‘Monks’, who live as if they are stage-players acting out ‘righteousness’. They use their religious uprightness to oppress those of other classes.
In the last section of the piece, Erasmus turns his attention to the ‘happiness of Christians’ found in folly. Erasmus illustrates that to the world, the Christian appears foolish, but in actuality possesses a much different type of wisdom. For instance, the apostles refuted the heathen philosophers with their good lives and miracles rather than arguing over subtle trifles, though they were learned and well equipped for such a defense. It is true that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Even Christ, in some manner became a fool in taking on the nature of man. This is the very essence of the cross; it is foolishness to those of this world.
In a sense, there is a duality of foolishness in this piece. In one way, the theologians and philosophers are described with a certain dislike. For they pursue their grammarian ways with much toil, which is a kind of madness and folly in itself. While in another way, certain fools have an advantage for they understand the true nature of folly. Some things are not meant to be defined as‘doctor-like’. This statement illustrates the concept of faith, ‘it is something not seen’.
Though the literary structure of this piece makes it somewhat difficult to follow, the overall message is clear. Beware of being so consumed with self-love and the particulars of this world, for in these things one can loose a sense of humility. The elements of scholarship and humility are to be held in balance. If these things were held in balance, the church would grow towards purity and a proper understanding of the humans’ role in God’s eternal redemptive plan.
Part 2: Athanasius ‘On the Incarnation’
Part 3: Saint Benedict ‘The Rule’
1 comment February 4, 2009
