Author Archives: Mark Herzer

Larger Catechism, #70 [Excursus: Paul vs. James?]

Excursus[1]

Having dealt with the Reformed view of justification by faith alone, we also need to address the matter of Paul and James. I believe there is a solution to the following —

A. Paul’s statement: “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28, lit. translation— λογιζόμεθα ⸀γὰρ ⸂δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει⸃ ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου)

B. James’s statement: “justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (2:24, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον)

Johnson says, “It is obvious to every reader that James is saying something different from what Paul said. The question is, How different?”[2] We believe the two are very different. The solution lies in clarifying four different and significant issues surrounding this debate.[3] Once we recognize them, the “problem” disappears, not because of some slight of hand or some sneaky word play but because the issues that James and Paul were pursuing were entirely different. Even the highly liberal scholar Kummel sees a way through this difficulty by recognizing the different circumstances in James and Paul: he says, “If the distinctions in the terminology and the divergent polemical aims of Paul and James are taken into account appropriately, and if accordingly, between the two forms of theological statement a considerably larger area of commonality can be established…”[4] If we let the two respective inspired writers speak on their own terms and in their own contexts, then I believe we will find that a formal harmonization will not be necessary.

I believe the four areas in which James and Paul differed are the following:

1. Different historical situations

2. Different use of the word “faith”

3. Different use of the word “works”

4. Different use of the word “justification”

Of the four, the last item has been the traditional solution. In a sense, if the first three areas are proved, then the last point need not apply. One could argue that the word justification is used in the same way for Paul and James providing we understand the first three points. But I believe it can be shown that James was driving at a different point in his epistle (we’ll call it an “epistle” though there is debate as to its actual genre).

Different historical situations

It is obvious to many NT scholars that James and Paul are dealing with different sets of problems. They are not addressing the same circumstance and different questions were being answered. Paul was dealing with works righteousness while James was dealing with no righteousness. Paul was countering legalism while James was contending with antinomianism. Paul was destroying the notion of merit-righteousness while James was establishing the necessity of holiness. But this is no longer an accepted view. E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have argued that Paul was not writing a polemic against legalism. These two men have influenced new NT scholars. Dunn actually argues that Paul’s major concern was over the issue of Jewish nationalism and exclusivism.

In Rom. 10:3, Paul makes it clear that the Jews were “seeking to establish their own” righteousness and would not submit to the righteousness that comes from God. Romans 4:4-5 demonstrates that Paul was writing against those who trusted in their own works.[5] Paul did not want anyone to imagine that God justified on the basis of one’s works. Paul’s polemic in Romans (as well as in Galatians) was against those who believed that some performance of the law merited God’s approval. So Paul said that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

James, on the other hand, is dealing with something entirely different. Chapter two addresses those who show favoritism and he encourages adherence to the “royal law” (v. 8). In verses 8-13, James encourages adherence to the moral law (notice, no reference to any ceremonial or ritual laws). He is encouraging obedience. When we come to vv. 14-26, James continues the same theme. “What good is it, my brothers…” is his question for this section. What benefit is it not to have “works” (obedience, evidential works)? The example he uses is critical to understanding his concern. He has already condemned favoritism and now he denounces the professing believer who neglects a brother in need. He is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.”

Paul and James therefore wrestled with two different church settings. This observation means that we should expect different emphases. Their circumstances were not related at all and therefore their bold statements may appear to be contradictory. A family that lives in a dry climate may say, “Always save the waste water and put it in the backyard.” This same family, if they moved into a very humid and wet environment may say, “Never worry about saving water and make sure our waste water is removed as far as possible from our premises.” On the face of it, the statements are contradictory but the contexts clarify the statement. So, Paul and James made their statements in two different situations. Paul would have said the same thing as James were he in the same circumstance as James’s. Once we recognize this, then we will begin to see that different solutions had to be offered. Unfortunately, they utilized the same vocabulary within different circumstances. That is why the subsequent discussions have to show how they differed from each other.

Different use of the word “faith”

James is fighting against a certain type of faith. Paul is pitting faith against works as a means of justification. Let us consider James’s view. In 2:17, James states that “faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (NIV) — (NASB has, Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself; οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ⸂ἔχῃ ἔργα⸃, νεκρά ἐστιν καθʼ ἑαυτήν). He reiterates this point in different words in 2:20 —“faith without deeds is useless” (ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ⸀ἀργή ἐστιν); and in 2:26, “faith without deeds is dead” (ἡ πίστις ⸀χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν). James is combatting dead useless faith.

Let us unpack this a little bit. We must recognize that “faith” itself is insignificant. If I have faith in Buddha, then I can be certain that such faith cannot justify. All would concur. Then naked faith can do nothing; it is not the power of faith that justifies. James is teaching that this “said” faith (“someone says he has faith but does not have works” v. 14, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ) is not saving faith. In v. 18, a similar pronouncement is made, “But some will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Lest we be led into some esoteric view, James particularizes it in verses 15 & 16. A professed faith that neglects our brethren is simply a clear demonstration that the faith that they profess is useless and dead. “James is disturbed at a faith that has no works to demonstrate its reality in the life of a believer.”[6]

Paul, on the other hand, is saying that when it comes to justification, faith is the sole instrument — works do not play any justifying role. God’s righteousness is manifested “apart from the law” (Rom 3:21) and that man is justified by faith “apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). When Paul is dealing with justification by faith, he is pitting this gospel truth against those who “rely on the works of the law” (Gal. 3:10). So, in a sense, he pits faith against works of the law when it comes to justification. He is not arguing that this justifying faith is like the faith James was condemning. Certainly, if we would just step back and consider James’s situation, we would have no problem seeing Paul stating the same things as James given the context and given the “kind” of faith James was combating.

Paul is contemplating a faith that serves as a point of entry into life while James has in mind a faith that professes to have life. Paul views faith as a means of justification. James views faith as a living faith and not a useless one. They are not opposed to each other because they do not have the same concept of faith.

It is interesting to note that men like Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich would be the first to declare “faith alone” but their views are entirely different from Paul’s and James’s. Tillich believed that faith is “the state of being ultimately concerned” and drew from that all manner of foolishness.[7] Both James and Paul would say “Tillich’s faith” cannot justify because it is useless and dead as to its content and consequent fruit. Peter Davids suggests that someone must have been saying something like, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity.”[8] That may well have been the slogan James was refuting; it certainly fits the context.

Different use of the word “works”

We look at the words “works” and assume that certainly Paul and James are dealing with the same concept.[9] This is probably the easiest thing to overlook. First of all,[10] the exact vocabulary of James 2:24 is not found in any of Paul’s writings. In Rom. 3:20, Paul uses “by/from works of the law” while James uses “by works.” In Rom. 3:28, it is “without works of the law” and in 4:16, it is “not only to the adherent of the law.” In the original Greek, it becomes clear that the exact phrases are never used. Secondly, the vocabulary differs at critical points. James never uses nomos or law in this section. Paul says, ‘without works of the law” — the works are always “works of the law.” James, on the other hand, never uses the word LAW in this section.

Paul’s phrase “works of the law” is a reference to positive acts of obedience. These acts of obedience to God’s law can never justify us. Again, he is dealing with one’s entry into salvation. James, on the other hand, uses “works” in the life of a believer. A professing believer should show works of holiness in his life or else it is empty. It may be better to translate everything in this section as “deeds.” The English word “deeds” connotes a demonstrative faith while the theologically technical word “works” denotes acts of obedience unto justification (which Paul refutes).

In summary, we may say that Paul is wrestling with works of the law that are a means of justification while James is confronting “works” or deeds that are entirely absent in the ones who profess to be justified. Paul is dealing with the role of works, once again, as it pertains to entering into life while James is dealing with deeds that give evidence of the one who professes to have life. In summary, Adamson’s words may be helpful here, “Faith is the inspiration of works, and works are the proof of faith.”[11] Another commentator put it this way, “Where ‘Paul denies the need for ‘pre-conversion works,’ James emphasizes the absolute necessity of post-conversion works.”[12] Works of the Law are entirely absent for Paul when it comes to justification. Works are always present in James when it comes to one’s expression of faith.

Different use of the word “justification”

The same form of the word “justify” is not in Paul and James. Paul (Rom. 3:20 [δικαιωθήσεται]; Rom. 3:28 [δικαιοῦσθαι]; James 2:21 [ἐδικαιώθη]; James in 2:24 [δικαιοῦται]). The exact word is never used which suggests that James perhaps was not arguing against Paul.[13] Though all four passages may have the passive voice, none of them have the exact same form.

Does that necessarily mean that James and Paul have defined the words differently? Not necessarily. But the context adds something to this. In verse 18, James is saying “I will show you my faith by my works.” His concern is to demonstrate the reality of the faith before men.[14] This seems to be clearly the case in v. 21. Abraham was justified by works or vindicated by his deeds.[15] The justifying means of faith was not denied by James as he cites Gen. 15:6 in verse 23. So, the justifying in verse 24 could well be translated as “vindication.” Or, it is as Trapp says, “It is faith that justifies the man; but they are works that justify faith to be right and real, saving and justifying.” (Trapp on v. 21).

However, if we take it to mean the same thing (namely, that justification means the same thing in both James and Paul), then we can still see that the “faith alone” that James refutes is the useless dead faith he already demolished.[16] Genuine humble faith always works though one’s deeds do not earn salvation or merit justification. Remember, faith is full of works but the works in faith do not justify because we are justified by faith alone.

[1] This is taken from my lecture notes on the General Epistles.

[2] Luke T. Johnson, “Letter of James,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. et al. Leander E. Keck, 12 (Nashville: Abington Press, 1998), 197.

[3] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, ZECNT, vol. 16 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 139 argue that ‘faith,’ ‘works,’ and ‘justify’ are used differently between Paul and James.

[4] W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., translated by H. C. Lee (Nashville: Abington Press, 1973), 415.

[5] See T. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 93-121 for an excellent defense of this position against Sanders, Dunn, et al.

[6] R. Martin, James, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 48 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 96. Adolf Schlatter seems to believe that James was focusing on the demonstrative aspect of faith in his A. Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles, translated by A. J. Kostenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 88-89. “Mere confession cannot be considered to be a sufficient demonstration of faith but only works, since words do not yet reveal the essential characteristic of faith” (89). Works “lend visible expression to our faith.”

[7] See his infamous P. Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957).

[8] P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 132.

[9] Of course, we are not arguing that the words “works” are different— they are exactly the same but the two writers use them differently.

[10] The basic structure of this argument is taken from P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 130-131.

[11] J. Adamson, The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 38.

[12] Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, 132.

[13] Most liberal and critical scholars assume that James was refuting either Pauline theology or most likely an aberrant form of Pauline teaching. L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, translated by J. E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 2:208-209 argues that James was refuting a “slogan” used by some disciples of Paul. Apart from that, much of what he says is quite helpful, pp. 209-211. Martin entertains a similar thesis, R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 2:362.

[14] The divines would say in foro humano, in the human forum or court.

[15] The word justify (dikaioo) usually means to declare righteous but there are a few times where it means something like “demonstrate to be right” or “vindicate” as in Mt. 11:19. “Wisdom is proved right by her actions.” (cf. Lk. 7:35; 10:19; 16:15) This probably is the best way to explain what is going on in the passage.

[16] Most NT scholars believe any attempt to deny that both James and Paul are using the same concept of justification is doomed to fail. See B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 3rd revised ed., translated by J. E. Duguid (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, [1879]), 1:257 n.4.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 3]

Leave a reply

70. Q. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[286] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[287] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[288] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[289] and received by faith alone.[290]

PART 3

Without Works

This glorious blessing comes to believers “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them.” Paul says that we are “justified by his grace” (Titus 3:7) and that God saved us “not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). None of these blessings come to us on the basis of the change that we undergo or on the basis of the works that we perform. The two phrases are critical. When the divines say that it is “not for any thing wrought in them,” they are saying that we not declared righteous because of something done in us (wrought in them). Our growth in holiness, devotion to Christ, deepening love to Christ, etc. are not the reasons for God to accept us righteous in His sight. Furthermore, it also is not dependent on the obedience we offer to God (whatever that may be).

This is entirely opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine as set forth in their Council of Trent. Ch. VII[1] says that the cause of justification is that God “maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and cooperation.”

Notice, God “maketh” us just. We are not “only reputed” to be just before God “but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us…” Justification therefore is in fact based upon what is wrought in us and done by us. In the end, justification is not truly an act of grace and mercy but one of justice, as something that God must do. The divines also curiously cite Eph. 1:7. At first glance, it is not immediately apparent how this verse applies: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace…” Yet, the general point of the verse is critical, our full redemption is “according to the riches of his grace” and not according to the riches of our own inherent righteousness. Justification is an act of grace purchased by the redemption of Jesus Christ.

Imputation

We have already developed some of these points in our exposition above. Yet a few more points can be gleaned from the following: “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them.” If it isn’t our own works and on the basis of something wrought in us, then on what basis can God declare us righteous in His sight? It is that question this phrase answers. The LC explains whose righteousness is imputed to us. This phrase in the LC is often labeled as active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ’s perfect obedience refers to His obedience unto the Father in everything. In particular, it is His obedience to the Law of God. The passive obedience refers to the sufferings he willingly underwent. Of these things, we have dealt with in LC #38 & 39. He fully fulfilled all the laws requirements and satisfied God in His suffering (to satisfy divine justice). This point is summarily stated in Rom. 5:19 —“through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

That full righteousness is imputed to us. It is His righteousness in our account, we are declared righteous. Wesleyans deny this. They say, “Christ’s death is a substitute for our punishment but not for our holiness.”[2] That is, they take the passive obedience of Christ and dispense with the active obedience. This takes us no further than Roman Catholicism. The papists all knew our sins were washed away (again and again, etc.) but could not account for the righteousness (except for what we do). Interestingly, they says our righteousness is our faith, that is, our act of faith is considered to be the righteousness which in turn makes the act of man the basis of our standing before God.[3] Paul says, “in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (thn e˙k qeouv dikaiosu/nhn e˙pi« thØv pi÷stei)” (Phil. 3:8, 9). It is a righteousness that comes from God that comes to us (not our own) —one is from God and the other from the law — “e˙k qeouv indicates that the sourceof this righteousness is God himself. It stands in sharp contrast to e˙k no/mou: Paul viewed the two as mutually exclusive.”[4]

Sola Fide

The last and most important phrase deals with the means of justification: “and received by faith alone.” All that has been said is received by faith alone. It is not faith in addition to something else (baptism, penance, immersion, etc.). The sola is critical here.

Catholics insist that it is not by faith alone. The title of the book is Not By Faith Alone.[5] It is argued that the Bible says explicitly the opposite in James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” They have a point; the Bible does not say explicitly that a man is justified by faith alone! How do we deal with this?

First of all, a word about Paul and James. I have written the following before: James “is not arguing against works righteousness; he is condemning the absence of righteousness. Paul’s concern is soteriological while James is ethical. Paul is concerned with the way of salvation through faith in Christ while James is concerned with the way of life in salvation. Paul wrote against “works righteousness” while James combated a “lack of righteousness.””[6]

Secondly, though the explicit phrase “faith alone” is not used in reference to justification, we must not assume therefore it is a wrong phrase. The phrase conveys the substance of Biblical teaching. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith without works, what are we to make of it? Rom. 3:28 says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Again, in Rom. 4:5 Paul says, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…” In Gal. 2:16 Paul says— “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” In all these verses, Paul is pitting a singular act of faith against works of the law. Yes, he did not say “faith alone” but did he need to say it in view of the contrast? Was he saying, “We are justified by faith plus a few other things we do and yet it is apart from the works of the law?” That point just doesn’t need to be stated.

We have to state it because the point of the verse is undermined by sinful innovations. In those who oppose sola fide, they always make it faith plus something else (plus what God does in us, plus what acts we perform, plus this or that ritual act, etc.).

Catholics — Trent On Justification

Here are just a few extracts to give you a taste of the RC teaching on this matter. The up to date edition of J. Neuner and J. Dupuis’s work does not change any of this. Lastly, most modern Catholics (laity) are unaware of their own doctrinal foundations and views. Their personal affirmations and denials do not often represent their “church’s” teaching.[7]

CANON I. — If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [N.B. — Papists do not deny that God’s grace is necessary; they are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians and therefore God’s grace is not the sole efficient cause of our salvation.]

CANON XI. — If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Papists deny that Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is the sole basis of our justification. They require inherent grace working in us; grace coupled with human effort (cooperation) are both needed in order to be justified. Grace begins it (for the papists) and human effort adds to it (works inspired by grace our labors still play a cooperative role in justification).]

CANON XII. — If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. [N. B. — Man is not justified by faith alone for the papist. Here, the papists are very clear in denouncing the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. The evangelical believer is condemned in relying solely on Christ, for believing that he is justified by faith alone.]

[1] Decree on Justification, Sixth Session (Denzinger, §799).

[2]Wynkoop, Foundation of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, 110.

[3] I develop this in my essay “Arminianism Exposed.”

[4] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 397.

[5] Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997).

[6] See my essay “James vs. Paul?” (below)

[7] J. Neuner and J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith (New York: Alba House, 2001), 793ff.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 2]

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70. Q. What is justification?

PART 2

Forgiveness of Sins

The LC further states that justification includes forgiveness of sin: “in which he pardoneth all their sins.” In Rom. 4:6, Paul cites David’s statement in Ps. 32:1, 2 as the “blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works (ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων).” The verses he cites to support his statement on justification deal with the forgiveness of sins: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Justification includes forgiveness of sins. God is able to forgive because of the propitiatory work of Christ (Rom 3:15, “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”). Jesus covered our sins because He paid the penalty for them. For that reason, God may forgive justly and mercifully.

Justification is more than forgiveness. Yet, Wesleyans principally focus on this as the sum and substance of justification. Forgiveness is the “vital fact of justification.”[1] We must distinguish forgiveness of sin from justification but we cannot separate or equate them.

That a man is forgiven of all his sins is indeed wonderful but positive holiness is also required of man. A pauper may be forgiven of his debt; he is still penniless. Forgiveness is important but justification is more than forgiveness. With the forgiveness of sins, the believer is also accounted righteous!

Accepts as Righteous

So the LC further states that in justification, God “accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight.” In the verse cited above, Paul says that the man is blessed whom God “counts righteousness” apart from the works of the law. The critical verb in Ps. 32 is “counts” (λογίζεται) — God does not make the person righteous but counts, reckons, declares them righteous. Paul cites Ps. 32 (Rom. 5:7,8) and in v. 6, he summarizes the point he will prove with the citation. Paul says that God does not count the sins against his people (v.8) and this has the net effect of counting the person righteous (v. 6). “To be counted as righteous apart from works is to have one’s lawless deeds forgiven, one’s sins covered, and one’s sin not taken into account.”[2] John Murray says this about the Romans passage:

We may not say that Paul intended to define the whole nature of justification as consisting in remission of sin. Where justification is, remission must be and vice versa. That is why he makes virtual equation in these verses. But as Paul has shown already (cf. 1:17; 3:21–26) and as he will show later (cf. 5:17–21; 10:3–6), remission does not define justification, though justification must embrace remission.^{^[3]}

The two verses from 2 Corinthians used to support the doctrine (5:19, 21) are also worth citing: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them… For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ).” Our trespasses are not counted against us because he became sin for us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) that we might become the righteousness of God — that is, just as God did not count sin against us, so God counts us as righteous all on account of Christ. Though two different verbs are used (reckoned and become), the parallel is assumed because in Christ God reconciled us, and in Him we become the righteousness of God. One commentator demonstrates this very point:

“To become the righteousness of God” is to gain a right standing before God that God himself bestows (cf. Rom. 5:17; Phil. 3:9). It is to be “constituted righteous” in the divine court, so that gene÷sqai dikaiosu/nh qeouv = κατασταθήσονται δίκαιοι (Rom. 5:19).[4] Although the term logi÷zomai is not used in v. 21 (but cf. v. 19), it is not inappropriate to perceive in this verse a double imputation: sin was reckoned to Christ’s account (v. 21a), so that righteousness is reckoned to our account (v. 21b).[5]

Another commentator puts it this way, “We do not simply have righteousness from God, we are the righteousness of God as a result of being in Christ (see 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11). We are given his righteousness only as we are in him, and will be raised like him only if we live in him.”[6] These are ours in Christ, in Him.

The LC states that God “accounteth their persons righteous in his sight” — it is in God’s sight and not per se in man’s sight that we are accepted and accounted righteous. His judicial verdict is what matters and this forensic alien righteousness accounted to us is our standing before God.

[1]Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:310-11.

[2] Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 219.

^{^[3]} John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 1:134-5.

[4] Rom. 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί).”

[5] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 455.

[6] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC 29; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 302.

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 1]

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Questions 70

70. Q. What is justification?

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[286] Romans 3:22, 24-25. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [287] 2 Corinthians 5:19, 21. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation…. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Romans 3:22, 24-25, 27-28. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference…. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God…. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [288] Titus 3:5, 7. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost…. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Ephesians 1:7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. [289] Romans 5:17-19. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 4:6-8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. [290] Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Galatians 2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Introduction

As all Protestants know, the doctrine of justification is the article on which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae).[1] Protestants have historically understood this doctrine quite well but our generation has not embraced this doctrine with the necessary zeal it requires. As a result, ecumenical attempts have emerged to blur the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on this doctrine (e.g., ECT). Within Protestantism, the New Perspective on Paul has further eroded our understanding of this great doctrine. All of these forces are seducing a generation that is less theological and less concerned about historic biblical doctrines.

Ridgeley’s begins his exposition of this question by highlighting the importance of this doctrine. As he notes, in the LC, justification follows calling like Rom. 8:30, “Whom he called, them he also justified.” His explanation of how these questions relate to each other is very helpful.

Hitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life which is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made alive, and one who was wholly indisposed for good works, and averse to the performance of them, is enabled to perform them by the power of divine grace. Now we are to speak concerning that change of state which accompanies change of heart; whereby one who, being guilty before God, was liable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than an eternal banishment form his presence, is pardoned, received into favour, and has a right to all the blessing which Christ has, by his obedience and sufferings, purchased for him. (Ridgeley, 2:81)

Before expositing this question, we need to define what justification is. Modern evangelicals tend to use the word “saved” far more than “justified.” Furthermore, salvation is often simply defined as forgiveness of sins (it is that and much more). Though debates about justification abound in the theological world, yet ordinary believers do not readily and frequently use the word. Consequently, absent are the weighty concepts related to the doctrine of justification. As a result, subtle but critical distinctions are lost. The differences, to many, seem inconsequential. In turn, differences between Evangelicals and Papists appear to be minimal. For that reason, we need to carefully explain this doctrine because eternal matters are at stake.

Definition of “Justify”[2]

1. The Latin Vulgate translated the word “justify” with iustificare (to make righteous). Eventually, it took on the idea of spiritual transformation or a renovation of nature. This transformation presumably took place through the sacraments.[3] Luther and the Reformers, after studying Scripture, questioned this understanding. Practically speaking, how would you know if you were justified enough, renovated enough? The Roman Catholic answer could never answer that.

2. The idea of justification deals with how a person is related to God and His law. A court will declare Hitler guilty for infractions and crimes against humanity. In a more profound sense, man has been declared guilty by God. Man is declared guilty for breaking God’s law. To declare someone guilty is not to make them sinful but merely states a fact in relation to the law. In its relationship to regeneration (to which we have given some attention), Murray says, “Regeneration is an act of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us.”[4] Regeneration dealt with what happens in us. Justification is that which happens outside of us (“alien righteousness”).

3. Justification declares us righteous before God and His law. The key word is declare. “In Scripture to justify does not mean to make righteous in the sense of changing a person’s character. It means to constitute righteous, and to do so by declaration.”[5] But it is not a legal fiction (i.e. declaring something that is not the case).

The sentence of a human judge is merely declarative; it does not constitute a man either innocent or guilty, it only pronounces him to be so in the eyes of the law: it may even be erroneous, and may pronounce one to be innocent who is really guilty, and another to be guilty who is really innocent; whereas in justifying a sinner, God does what no human judge can do,…He first constitutes him righteous, who was not righteous before, and then declares him to be righteous, in His infallible judgment, which is ever according to truth.[6]

In other words, “The peculiarity of God’s action consists in this that he causes to be the righteous state or relation which is declared to be.”[7] More simply put, God’s declaration is a truth, it really is the case. He declares to be the case as it really is. We may not feel it is the case or do we recognize it to be the case but that is the wonder of it. God declares as He sees us to be in relation to Him—that is the most important “perspective.”

4. Scriptural reflections on justification.

a. Justification is declarative and is the opposite of condemnation. That is the way these verses use the term. Deut. 25:1, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,…” Prov. 17:15, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”

b. “The expressions used as synonyms or substitute for justify do not have the sense of ‘making righteous’, but carry this declarative, constitutive sense (cf. Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1-2, and Paul’s use of both texts in Rom. 4:3, 6-8).”[8]

c. “The ultimate proof that justification involves a status changed by public declaration lies in the biblical view that through the resurrection Jesus himself was ‘justified’ (1 Tim. 3:16). It would be quite impossible to understand this in the sense of an alteration in our Lord’s character. It must refer to the vindication of him by God through the triumph and victory of the resurrection. By the resurrection he was declared to be in a right relationship with God (cf. Rom. 1:4).”[9]

d. So, Scripture teaches justification to be a declarative act and not a statement about someone’s subjective/inherent state. In other words, it is a declaration of a legal kind (forensic) and not a declaration of one’s inherent righteousness — declared right, not made right.

Act of God’s Free Grace

The answer begins by affirming the most important point: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners…” This is so important, that the next question explains it more fully by asking, “How is justification an act of God’s free grace?” The divines carefully use the word “act” in relation to justification (SC #33, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace…”) while sanctification is the “work” of God’s free grace (SC #35). Perhaps it is to highlight the fact that “act” is a thing done (actus) while a “work” is a thing ongoing? We may not able to make such a fine distinction in English but the point needs to be registered. What God does in justification is different from what He does in sanctification. I suspect the different verbs merely highlight that very point.

That God justifies is not something God is required to do. It is not a necessity. That He justifies sinners is an act of His “free grace.” God voluntarily does this out of His sheer grace and mercy to sinners. No person can require or presume to expect this from God; it is not an act of justice. No sinner can require God to justify him — the only required act is one of judgment. Unfortunately, a common belief that God exists to pardon and accept sinners permeates many hearts. For them, that is God’s function and responsibility. That God justifies sinners is good news because it is entirely an act of His grace.

God justifies sinners. This has been the source of consternation and confusion among Catholics.[10] Christ died for sinners; God justifies them. He declares them righteous when they look in faith to Jesus Christ. Whereas Catholics also believe in the justification of the impious, they mean that the person is really made just or righteous. The phrase “justifies the ungodly” comes from Rom 4:5 (Vulgate, justificat impium) — the difference comes from the way it is interpreted. Leon Morris says this about the verse:

God’s saving activity does not operate solely on the most promising material. He justifies the impious, even those actively opposed to him. This is all the more striking in that the Old Testament says that God does not justify the wicked (Exod. 23:7; LXX has “Thou shalt not justify the ungodly”, making it a command); it forbids people from doing it (Prov. 17:15; 24:24; Isa. 5:23). Paul is not enunciating a religious commonplace, but giving expression to a resounding paradox.[11]

Indeed, it is resounding paradox. This paradox is pronounced when we read the first part of the verse: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly…” — God justifies the ungodly person who does not work but only believes in him. This is an astounding statement.

Paul’s designation of God as one who ‘justifies the wicked’ would come as a shock to his Jewish readers. In Exod 23:7 God says, “I will not acquit the guilty,” and in Prov 17:15 we learn that he “detests” the practice of acquitting the guilty when carried out by others (cf. Prov 24:24; Isa 5:23). The paradoxical phrase, however, is in keeping with the remarkable fact that a holy God accepts as righteous unholy people on the basis of absolutely nothing but faith. F. F. Bruce comments that God, who alone does great wonders, created the universe from nothing (1:19-20), calls the dead to life (4:17), and justifies the ungodly, “the greatest of all his wonders.”[12]

Lutherans rightly have emphasized the simil iustus et peccator. Those whom God justifies are at the same time sinners. Justification does not make a person righteous, it is declares Him so in God’s court. “It is God who justifies? Who is to condemn?” (Rom. 8:33, 34) Catholics believe that God can justify the impious because He actually makes them just or righteous, “justification entails the sanctification of the whole being” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1995). Justification “conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.” (§1992) We will now look at the statements in the LC that counters such a formulation.

[1] The exact words cannot be found in Luther, cf. Donald Macleod, A Faith to Live By: Understanding the Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2010), 149. Karl Barth noted this earlier in his Church Dogmatics. However, the general point is maintained by Luther.

[2] The first point is taken from Macleod, A Faith to Live By, 149-151.

[3] This “means” of justification (via sacraments) is maintained by the “Official Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration issued in June 1998” (Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue). See Dulles, Church and Society, 310-311.

[4]Redemption—Accomplished and Applied (1955), 121.

[5]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 81.

[6]J. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 248 (cited by Ferguson).

[7]Murray, Redemption—Accomplished…, 153.

[8]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 82.

[9]Ferguson, The Christian Life, 82.

[10] Trent on Justification, CANON IX. — If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

[11] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 199-200.

[12] Robert H. Mounce, Romans (NAC 27; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 123.

Chapter 10, When will we stop eating the Lord’s Supper?

Leave a reply

We will now cover the last part of our little study. The question before you is a very simple one. When will we stop eating the Lord’s Supper? Well, this, of all the questions, is the easiest.

We are told in 1 Cor. 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” As we celebrate the Supper, we are proclaiming His death until He comes.

So we will continue to have the Supper until either we die or until our Lord comes back. This is a practice which we will celebrate for the rest of our lives or until history as we know it ends (which ends when Christ comes back). Most people will have little problem with any of this. They will say, “Of course we do it until He comes back or until we die.” Yet, is there any significance to this?

Having the future in mind

The Lord’s Supper is closely tied to the past event (the Supper represents what Christ did), to the present (the present fellowship we have with Him at the Supper), and also to the future. It is something we easily overlook. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

We sometimes focus so much on the present benefits of the Supper that we fail to consider how they relate to the future. We are to remember that He is coming back. Each time we celebrate the Supper, we are reminded that what we experience now will not continue indefinitely. The joy, sorrows, pain, pleasure, etc. will all come to an end. Christ is coming back.

We are not communing with Christ at the Supper only to just get along in this life. The present fellowship at the Supper is also a reminder that one day, we shall see Him face to face. The sacrament will give way to reality; the sign to the person to whom it pointed.

I will not drink again… until that day (Mt. 26:29)

When our Lord commanded that the Supper be celebrated (that is, when He instituted the Supper), He said, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Mt. 26:29) This was Jesus’ way of saying farewell to them (though they didn’t fully realize it at the time) since He was about to die. But He was also promising them something. He will have table fellowship with them in the future. Their present fellowship will be renewed in our Father’s kingdom.

So, at the Supper, we have the promise that one day, we shall fellowship with our Lord face to face in our Father’s kingdom. Each time we celebrate, we are not only recognizing that He will return but that Supper is also an emblem of the future fellowship we will have with our Lord. Of course we have present sweet fellowship with Him at the Supper but we must also remember that this present fellowship is only a taste of the great table fellowship to come.

This promise is made several other times. The Bible speaks of the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9), reclining at the table with Abraham (Mt. 8:11), and reclining at the table of the kingdom of God (Lk. 13:29). Table fellowship is the picture of the great intimacy we have with our Lord.

We should yearn for the great Supper to come. As we enjoy the sweet fellowship with our Lord at the Supper, we should also remember that this is just a small taste (albeit satisfying) of the great Supper to come.

In the mean time…The Cross

With the future in mind and with the promise of the future fellowship in our hearts, we are to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” What characterizes the Supper and our lives is the importance of the death of Christ for our present lives.

The death of Christ is our food, our nourishment. It sustains us as we wait for the coming of our Lord. It is the subject of our preaching. From it come the benefits of the Lord’s Supper. Because of Christ’s death, we live and because of its rich worth (its sufficiency), we have peace with God.

One of the important things about the Supper is that it makes Christ’s death central to our lives. Our Lord wants us to continually look at the past event for our present benefit. He has done it all. At the Supper, we come empty because His death has paid everything for us. Our hunger is satisfied by the benefits of His death.

Because the death of Christ has fully accomplished our redemption, we are reminded of it over and over again each time we have communion. As we proclaim His death until He comes, we are at the same time reminded that the one who loved us not only died for us but that He will come back to us because He loves us.

Not in Heaven

Needless to say, there will be no need for the Lord’s Supper in heaven because everything that the Lord’s Supper points to and gives (signifies and exhibits), we receive in the person of Christ in heaven. The Lord’s Supper is temporary but necessary. It is like a lifesaver one wears when shipwrecked. Once we reach the shore, we no longer need it.

What this means is that the Lord’s Supper is the next best thing to heaven. Here in the Supper, we fellowship with Christ truly and spiritually. In heaven, we fellowship with Him personally, really, and perpetually. The same Christ is received but we get Him that much better in heaven.

Conclusion

In the Supper, the Lord gives Himself to us. What more can we ask? Let us prepare well, receive well, and afterwards, by faith reflect well. This will fill our course of life until we die or until Christ comes back.

If we cannot enjoy Christ at the Supper, then what are we looking for? If He is our chief delight and we enjoy genuine fellowship with Him at the Supper, then we are assured that this Supper will turn into the final Supper. What we have received by faith shall fill our souls by sight. Come Lord Jesus!

Questions

1. How long will believers partake of the Lord’s Supper?

2. What does the future have to do with the Lord’s Supper?

3. What did the Lord promise about the future when he instituted the Lord’s Supper?

4. What does it mean to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”?

Chapter 9, What should I do after the Lord’s Supper?

Leave a reply

If there is any energy spent on receiving the Lord’s Supper, it is usually expended before and during the Supper. That we would expect. Yet, there are still things that we can do after the Supper that can still help and encourage us.

In a normal meal, hunger creates a desire for food. As we sit for the meal, we find pleasure and delight as we eat. But what about “after” we eat? Don’t we feel satisfied because we ate? Don’t we derive benefits because of the nutrition we received? Are we not usually happier because we consumed a delicious meal? Yes, a good meal always satisfies us.

Something like that should happen to us after we have the Lord’s Supper. After the Supper, we should have been spiritually satisfied. Our souls should have been nourished and our love to Christ should have deepened. If we indeed have communed with Christ, we are much better for it.

We ought not to leave the table empty but filled. The One who serves the Table never disappoints. He promised to fellowship with us as revealed in His Word. So we must consider what happened and if indeed we received much from the Supper. If we neglect this, then are we not moving on with our lives with little concern for this matter?

The worst thing to do

I think many of us, myself included, give the least attention to this part of the Lord’s Supper. We prepare for the Supper and try to be as focused and serious as possible during the Supper. After that, we leave, at times mindful of what happens but quite often, we simply move to the next activity of our lives.

How would you respond if you shared something very important and personal with your friend who afterwards walked away and sat down in the living room to turn the TV on and acted like you never spoke her? You would wonder if she either took you seriously or if she understood what it was you shared. You expected your close friend to respond in a certain way that showed that they understood the seriousness of the conversation.

If we leave the Lord’s Supper and we don’t think about it or reflect on what happened, then what good was it? To walk away from the Supper without spiritually thinking about it and meditating on it with thanksgiving is to act as if we simply took medicine. When we take medicine, it doesn’t demand too much from us. We might not think about the medicine or even act as if we took it. Yet, it still affects us and does us good. But the Lord’s Supper is not like that at all. Its continued benefit assumes the exercise of faith.

The worst thing to do is to leave the Lord’s Supper without giving it a second thought. If we walk away with little reflection and spiritual meditation on what just happened, then we shortchange our spiritual growth. But what makes it worse is that we are by our actions saying that it was only good for that moment and not much more.

Paul’s example to the Corinthians

When we read 1 Cor. 11, we see Paul analyzing how the Corinthians acted at the Supper. He was reflecting on their behavior. They obviously did not do it so he does it for them. He is telling them how they behaved at the Supper and why it was they received judgment at the Supper.

We have noted already that the Corinthians behaved badly at the Supper (11:20ff.). He also exhorts them to change their behavior and to do the very opposite. First he said, “[W]hen you come together it is not for the better but for the worse …When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (11:17, 20) He is rehearsing how they acted at the Supper and rebuking them. At the end, he exhorts them by saying, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another…so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.” (11:33-34)

This is our example. We should look back and rehearse how we acted. We should wonder if our coming together with the saints was for my good. Did the Supper benefit my soul? Did I really come to Christ with a hungry soul to receive Him? Though Paul can’t write to us, we can reflect back with God’s Word and reflect on how we behaved.

I didn’t get anything

There may be occasions when we (for various reasons) did not truly benefit from the Supper. How then should we respond? Should we simply say, “Well, maybe it’ll be better next time?” If we leave it that way, will we really profit from it? If we do not ask serious questions, then why do we expect it to be better next time? If I am not able to fit into a particular pair of pants today, does that mean if I simply try it on the next day that it will work? Of course not! Why couldn’t I fit in? Was it my pants? Do I need to lose weight?

My young son once came to me asking for a belt because the pair of pants he was trying to wear was way too big. There was considerable room in his pants and I simply could not understand why they were so big and why my wife had given him these to wear. He went to his mother for help only to find that he was trying on his older sister’s pants. He made a mistake and picked up the wrong pair of pants. He could have tried the pants on every day for a few years and they still would not have fit him. In finding out the problem, he was able to get the right pair of pants.

So we should not respond by thinking that it will be more beneficial to us next time simply because we come to it again later. We should ask ourselves serious questions. Was I in a carnal frame of mind? Was I thinking about the world? What were my desires during the Supper? How well did I prepare? Did I stay up too late the night before wasting time or filling it with vain and silly things? Are there sins I need to confess? Am I harboring bitterness?

Some Causes

Remember, in Corinth, there was a specific reason why judgment came to the Corinthians. There are some things we can do to see if indeed we may be the cause. This, of course, is only a guide and is not meant to be a complete list:

Lack of preparation — The Corinthians did not properly prepare themselves. They ate and drank and sought to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Their actions indicated that they did not prepare and remedy the problem before the Supper. So, ask yourself, did you adequately prepare? Did you review your life? What about your choices, words, actions, etc.?

Worldly or carnal mind — Sometimes believers have wasted all their previous efforts and let their hearts and minds wander through the Lord’s Day in the morning and especially during the worship service. Maybe the sermon did very little for you so you let your heart wander and you began to fix your mind on unworthy things. If this was the way you acted during the Supper, you should repent and call upon the Lord for such ways during the precious time.

Sin against someone — It is not uncommon to find that some in the service may actually be sitting there with bitterness in their hearts against someone in the church or somewhere else. They have repeatedly let the sun go down on their anger (Eph. 4:26, 27) and somehow assumed that all is well because they do not feel the heat of their anger or bitterness during the Supper. This is a dangerous situation and the Lord’s holding back His blessing may only be a step towards something more harsh. You should quickly and humbly repent and seek reconciliation.

Presumption or superstition — Our hearts can get used to “rituals” and assume that like always that if they just go through the motions, everything will work out well. Other people think of the Supper superstitiously and look to it as magic. Instead of exercising faith in Christ, they are looking to the elements to do something in them like medicine. Against these things, we must continually fight. For these sins we must beg the Lord’s forgiveness.

To these things, the Larger Catechism says, “if they see they have failed…they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.” Go to Christ at the Supper that much more.

Thomas Doolittle asked, “What if you find no good by the sacrament?” The Christian is to respond, “I must examine what was the cause, be humble for it, forsake the sin, pray to feel the benefit of it when I have come away, better prepare myself, and humbly wait upon God therein for another time.”

What if I can’t honestly find the problem?

There may be occasions (perhaps quite often) when we simply cannot pinpoint it. Let us not grow discouraged. If our conscience is clear as we honestly and humbly review the matter, then we must continually seek the Lord and more earnestly seek Him at the Supper. Christ has promised to commune with you — will you not go to Him with those truths and pray earnestly that He will benefit your soul at the Supper as He so promised?

Many good men have pointed out that the blessings of the Supper may not come during the Supper but sometime after because you may have mourned more and seriously yearned more after Christ hours after the Supper.

Success!

Our Larger Catechism (#175) says that we should seriously consider how we behaved and see if we had success. If we did, then we should “bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, [and] fulfill their vows…” Surely God ought to be blessed for the benefits we derived from the Supper. Did you thank Him? Did you bow before Him in gratitude?

Also, let that blessing be a serious occasion to resolve to please Him more and live in a manner that is more consistent with our calling. You should bless Him for the assurance, comfort, and the real sense of His love for you. Such hearty thanks can only glorify God and make your heart glad with purity.

Furthermore, your lifestyle, your speech, your desires, etc. should be different and better. The Lord has been good to your soul and it should become evident in your behavior.

No Pride

Spiritual comforts can easily turn into spiritual pride. We may have received much and our souls may rejoice. “We ought especially to watch against the workings of spiritual pride after” the Supper; “for our wicked and deceitful hearts are most ready to be lifted up with the great favors and honor here conferred upon us.”[1]

If Satan could not trip us up before and during the Supper, then he’ll meet us after. Did not Satan enter Judas’s heart after the Supper (John 13:27)? If he cannot cause us to forsake the Supper, then he will use the Supper to cause us to forsake Christ by tempting you to be proud. Never say with the Laodiceans, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.” (Rev. 3:17) Don’t let your satisfied soul become the occasion for pride (cf. Deut. 8:11ff.). You still need your soul and any benefit you derived should be the occasion for thankfulness and humility.

Let us never trust our hearts. We came to Him dependent upon His grace and let us leave dependent upon Him. Let us not sin away His blessings by thinking more of ourselves than we ought. Surely, Christ’s grace came to us at the Supper on account of His tender mercy and grace. “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1 Cor. 4:7)

Questions

1. What is the worse thing to do after taking the Lord’s Supper?

2. What does the Bible teach regarding examining yourself after the Supper?

3. What should you do if you did not profit from the Supper?

4. What are some of the causes for not profiting from the Supper?

5. What should you when you profit from the Supper?

6. Explain why you should be aware of spiritual pride after the Supper?

[1] J. Willison, A Sacramental Catechism (1720; repr., Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000), 268.

Intinction

Leave a reply

Intinction[1]

Some Presbyterians and many high liturgists have resorted to intinction in the Lord’s Supper. Intinction was a minority practice in the early church in which the consecrated bread was dipped into the wine. The bread was often served on a spoon to prevent the possibility of dropping or dripping the elements.

The Eastern Church appears to practice this. On the other hand, the Western church has quite uniformly resisted this. Julius I (337-352) forbad this practice because he believed it was not biblical. The first Council of Braga (675) also decreed against it. Pope Urban II (1088-1099) similarly prohibited it except in cases of necessity and so did his successor Pascal II (1099-1118). The Convocation of Canterbury (1175) similarly condemned the practice. The Western church has always opposed this practice. A few however, tried to argue for its practice. Rolandus of Bologna (a twelfth century divine) argued pragmatically that it was easier to serve a larger congregation.

The reason why intinction should be permitted, according to Roland, is that it is an easier way to administer communion than by the host and chalice separately. The fear of dropping the host, or of accidentally spilling the contents of the chalice, he notes, may make some communicants anxious. This anxiety may undercut the proper state of devotion and receptivity which they need to bring to the sacrament. Their worry, indeed, may keep them away from communion altogether. And so, for practical pastoral reasons (curis secularibus) intinction should be allowed.[2]

The Western church did not believe that both elements were necessary (contra communio sub utroque specie = communion under both kinds, that is, both the bread and wine were required in order to have communion). Intinction also ran afoul against the growing doctrine of concomitance (which taught “that Christ exists wholly in each of the elements, so that those who receive the consecrated host, partake of his blood no less than of his body.”)[3] This theory of course assumes the doctrine of transubstantiation. So the Western church argued for communion sub una specie. She has consistently prohibited the practice of intinction.

When we read the Bible, we find that only one person received the sacrament by intinction (if we count it as such), i.e., Judas: “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.” (Mk. 14:20) But the practice appears to be unique to the institution. In Mark, the words of institution came after the dipping.

In Mark 14:22, Jesus blessed and broke the bread and said, “Take; this is my body.” It is a separate act to v. 23 which says, “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.” They did not eat of the cup but drank from it. Eating and drinking are separate acts. The commands are to eat (Mt. 26:26, “Take, eat”) and to drink (“Drink of it, all of you.” Mt. 26:27). The practice of intinction therefore cannot comply with our Lord’s words of institution.

[1] [This short post is taken from my lectures notes on ecclesiology. Some have asked me about this practice in our denomination so I have uploaded my preliminary thoughts on the topic.] References used for this are the following: McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature; A Catholic Dictionary, ed. Donald Attwater; Schaff’s History of the Christian Church; Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines; various theological reference works. Other related concepts are “concomitance” and communio sub utroque specie, etc.

[2] Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lombard (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 570.

[3] Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, § 195.

Proverbs 3:1-12

Leave a reply

Proverbs 3:1-12

3:1-4 — My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments, 2 for length of days and years of life and peace they will add to you. 3 Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 So you will find favor and good success in the sight of God and man.

Wisdom’s teaching must be kept by the heart ( ^B<)li); God’s commandment must be obeyed from the heart (v. 1). The commandments here (torah) are inclusive of God’s revealed will but in the context, it is probably focused on parental (father’s 1:8) instructions (cf. mother’s 1:8). “They had a binding quality to them because they were based on the teachers’ God-fearing observations of how life under divine control really worked.” (Hubbard)

Both verses 2 & 4 promise blessings to those who obey. Long and peaceful life (v. 2) and favor and success with God and men are promised. Favor is “the positive disposition of heaven and earth toward the son because of his attractiveness.” (Waltke)

Verse 3 commends us to write these things on our hearts. The “steadfast love and faithfulness” are probably another way of speaking about the teaching and commandments of v. 1. They are “the essence of the father’s commands.” (Waltke) So, we cultivate these commands internally (heart, v. 1) and externally (around your neck, v. 3).

So, as we heed God’s instruction (and parent’s), we are promised peace. That is not to say that we will be entirely free from trouble (since some men hate righteousness and persecute them) but instead, a life that avoids the afflictions of the wicked will bode better than those who disobey. “The wicked indeed live long, and the godly often ‘live out only half his days.’ The wicked die in outward comfort, the righteous in outward trouble. But length of days is the promise to the righteous — whether for earth or for heaven, as their Father deems fittest for them.” (Bridges) “The godly shall enjoy life as far as it is really a blessing in their particular circumstances, and the meaning carried beyond this would convert the blessing into a threatening. Peace is enjoyed by the godly, even that peace of God which passeth all understanding, and it keeps their hearts and minds through Jesus Christ. Outward prosperity is enjoyed by them, as far as it is consistent with their spiritual interests.” (Lawson)

3:5-8 — 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. 7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. 8 It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.

The words “trust” and “lean” (not incline) are very close to each other. Lean is “support yourself”, that is rely upon. In this context, we are called upon to obey the instructions of wisdom (vv. 1-4) and to rely on God and not our own understanding. That means, when we seek to obey God, there are times we wonder if obedience is proper or if it will prosper. “They are confident that as they fulfill their obligations, he will uphold his in his own time and in his own way, even when the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer (cf. 14:26; 16:23, 20; 18:10; 19:23; 28:25; 29:25; 30:1-14).” (Waltke) It is a trust that is whole-hearted.

Too often our understanding is the rule and guide. If God’s way comports with our understanding, with our outlook, then we will trust Him so far as we understand. “One is a fool to rely on his thimble of knowledge before its vast ocean or on his own understanding, which is often governed by irrational urges that he cannot control (26:5, 12, 16; 28:26a; esp. 30:1-6; Job 38:4-5).” (Waltke) “Dependence on our own wisdom, will lead us from trusting in God, to make lies our refuge, and to adopt unhallowed means for the attainment of our wishes.” (Lawson)

Of course, our understanding that is guided and filled with God’s commands is an entirely different thing. This understanding will see the wisdom of trusting in God and relying on His ways.

In verse 6, “acknowledge” means “know” — know (be aware of) God in all your ways. “If you know…God in your paths, then you will certainly be on the right ones.” (Longman) By trusting in God exclusively, we will know Him, we will be aware of Him in all our doings. As we become aware of God and His will in all our ways, then he will make straight your paths, that is, God will make sure that good will ultimately be accomplished. (Note, “One has to view the course of one’s life from a bird’s-eye view, not from a worm’s-eye view, to see this truth.”)

Verse 7 reiterates v. 5. To trust in the Lord and not relying on our own understanding means to not be wise in our own eyes but instead to fear God by turning away from all that is evil (cf., 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”). Ultimately, human wisdom that is not filled with God’s wisdom leads to evil. We must never be wise in our own eyes.

In so doing, we will have peace. Some draw a physical principle from v. 8: “By an eternal law the moral condition and the physical are linked together; the mens sana promotes the corpus sanum.” (Perowne)[1] But as some have noted, the physical imagery points to the metaphoric truth. “In sum, a right relationship with God leads to a state of complete physical and mental well-being, not simply to the absence of illness and disease.” (Waltke) “Health is a wholistic not just a physical word; it connotes thriving and radiant wellness…” (Hubbard)

3:9, 10 — 9 Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; 10 then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.

These two verses may appear to some to be out of place. The father’s instruction to his son is about wisdom, fearing God, obeying his commands, etc. What does this have to do with money? Yet, the presence of these verses reveal the mind of God. Wisdom, practical wisdom, in the life of the godly, is intimately connected with his use of wealth. In effect, wisdom is demonstrated in our use of mammon.

Honoring the Lord with our wealth is an act of worship. That is the context in which this occurs. [2] The firstfruits are reminiscent of Deut. 26:2, 10 (2 you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you harvest from your land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you shall put it in a basket, and you shall go to the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name to dwell there. 10 And behold, now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O LORD, have given me.’ And you shall set it down before the LORD your God and worship before the LORD your God:) It usually means the “best of material things” (Waltke).[3]

Verse 10 is like the other verses above. In response, God will bless if we trust Him wholeheartedly and obey His instructions. Even in the realm of our wealth, God will bless as He deems best. “Your vats…refer to several such pools or tubs. The yield of juice envisioned here is so great that several collecting pools will be needed for the wine, which was produced without trampling! Will overflow… means that it will break out of the confining rock tub. The Creator rewards the true worshiper more than hundredfold (Mal. 3:10-12; Mark 10:29-30).” (Waltke) In honoring the Lord with our wealth, we will not lack. As Paul says to those Philippians who supplied him with what he needed, “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:19)

“One can show they have the proper attitude toward Yahweh, in trusting (v. 5) and fearing him (v. 7), if they are willing to give up some of their wealth.” (Longman) “This is the rule of sacrifice— a costly precept to the worldling and the formalist. But to the servant of God, is it not a privilege to lay aside a portion of substance with this sacred stamp, ‘This is for God?’” (Bridges)

1. True wisdom, true fear of God, is demonstrated by honoring the Lord with our wealth.

2. This is particularly true for the young son in view. The youthful one, the naïve one, must show his fear of God by honoring Him with his own wealth. Giving to the Lord’s cause is not a “grown up’s” duty but the activity of all the godly. Isn’t this one of the first practical tests for a young lady or man? How will he view his or her newfound wealth? They’ve not seen this much money before. Will he horde it? Spend it on himself? Will he give grudgingly or sparingly? Will it be the firstfruits or only what remains after he spends on everything he wants? Will he really trust the Lord on this matter?

3. Verse 10 is the answer to those who argue that they cannot give to the Lord because they so need it. They must trust him and not lean on their own understanding. Quite often, heaven’s math differs from our checkbook. (not encouraging irresponsibility)

4. There are no exceptions in these verses. It is a call given to all who want to be wise in the Lord.

3:11, 12 — 11 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, 12 for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

We understand the reproof of parents but these verses speak of the Lord’s discipline (cf. Heb. 12:5-6). Perfect obedience is impossible and our hearts are not earnest as they ought to be. The Lord out of love for us disciplines us. We are not to “despise” or “be weary” of his discipline. Some endure but despise God in return though they may never say so. Despise and be weary contradict trust and rely in v. 5.

Waltke says, “When the father’s admonitions are violated, the son can expect the LORD to back it up with a ‘spanking’ to prevent the wrong from becoming habitual.” The discipline is corrective, pedagogical, reformative, etc. and not punitive. “As the loving Father, God desires the son to experience the blessings of the even verses, but the condition to realizing this goal is satisfying the obligations of the odd verses. Therefore, he imposes discipline on the son to conform him to its obligations and so proves his love. The absence of corrective measures… would indicate rejection.” (Waltke, summarizing W. Lane)

[1] Translated, “the sane mind promotes the healthy body.”

[2] “How would one honor Yahweh with one’s wealth? Though it does not specify, it would seem likely that we are talking here of turning over a portion of one’s wealth and produce to the temple officials who collect the tithe.” (Longman)

[3] “Unless the son pours on his ‘sacrifice’ the incense of love, trust, and devotion, as seen by offering the best, it is not acceptable to the LORD, as Cain should have learned (Gen. 4:2-7).” (Waltke)

The Larger Catechism, #2

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 2

2. Q. How doth it appear that there is a God?

A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God;[3] but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.[4]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[3] Romans 1:19-20. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Psalm 19:1-3. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Acts 17:28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. [4] 1 Corinthians 2:9-10. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 2 Timothy 3:15-17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Isaiah 59:21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Regarding the letter to the Romans, Shedd says this: “It is sometimes forgotten that the introductory part of this Epistle contains the fullest and clearest account ever yet given, of man’s moral and religious nature, and his innate knowledge of God and law. There is no deeper psychology, and no better statement of natural religion, than that in the first and second chapters.”[1] He rightly recognized that Romans teaches us that a knowledge of God is clearly available to us. The first two chapters teach us much about the kind of theological knowledge all men possess.

The Bible teaches us that both internally and externally, the created world declares that God exists. Internally, that is, in our constitution, God has written a knowledge of Himself.[2] In Rom. 2:14-16, we are taught that God’s righteous requirements are written in our hearts: “the work of the law is written on their hearts” (v. 15). Also, Rom. 1:19 states “that which may be known of God is manifest in them” (KJV).[3] Calvin and most of the traditional interpreters have taken it to be “in them.” However, the two verses are not the same. In Rom. 2:15, it suggests that God’s moral law is within them and in 1:19, the knowledge of God is in them because of the knowledge of God evident around them (“within them…to them,” NASB).[4] It is in us because it is evident around us. God’s created order plainly manifests His being.

Several things can be observed from Rom. 1 and 2. First of all, the knowledge of God is universal (v. 18). Verse 18 clearly has in mind all of humanity “all ungodliness and unrighteousness.” It is not for the few and the intelligent; all human beings are given this knowledge. The pagan, in a remote part of Africa, as well as the pagan in an extremely secular region of America, are both recipients of this knowledge. Secondly, it is God-authored. “God” has made it known (v. 19): “because God has shown it to them” (ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν). God is the subject of this sentence and the dispenser of this knowledge—He ensures that it gets to us. “The clause guards against any notion that people have access to true knowledge of God through their natural capacities.”[5] Thirdly, it is perspicuous or clear/plain (v. 19). We are told that God made it “plain” (φανερόν) to or in us and that He has manifested or shown (ἐφανέρωσεν) it to us (the same word translated differently). God is not playing a game here; the knowledge of God is clearly before us. This knowledge of Himself is not murky or cryptic; we may have shut our eyes against it but that does not lessen its clarity. This is more forcefully seen in v. 20 when Paul says that the things of God “have been clearly perceived” (νοούμενα καθορᾶται). Fourthly, it is accurate or true (vv. 18, 25). The knowledge man suppresses is the “truth” (τὴν ἀλήθειαν, v. 18). What is known is true; it is not a false general knowledge of a god— it is the unmistakable knowledge of Himself. In v. 25, we are told that humanity once again exchanged “the truth of God” for a lie. What is known or perceived is the genuine truth. Fifthly, it is the real God and not a god (or, it is theistic and not deistic) that is known and suppressed. God is making HIMSELF known (v. 19); He is not declaring a knowledge of a “god” that is vague. Our God is impressing a knowledge of Himself into the very fabric of His creation. Sixthly, it is more than mere existence (v. 20). It is not a bare existence of the true God that is known. Enough is made known to recognize His “invisible attributes.” Paul lists God’s “eternal power” (by the sheer vastness and extensiveness of the creation) and His “divine nature” (only a God could have created this universe). Evolution (the theory without God) is the deliberate attempt to hide this simple fact—viz., that the complex created world somehow sprang into existence by chance. Only God could have created such a complex world. We must also notice what Paul teaches us regarding the true God. God’s attributes (what some call, his involuntary attributes) are evident (power, justice [from God’s wrath, v. 18], etc.) but not his attribute of mercy (his voluntary attributes). Seventhly, it is authoritative (v. 19, 2:15, 16).[6] God is the one revealing Himself and God is the one addressing our consciences. His clear declaration and conviction in our consciences are authoritative, that is, He binds men to what He has so clearly revealed. The revelation is not a suggestion but an authoritative declaration of His person, character, and will. Lastly, it is sufficient (v. 20). God has made enough of Himself known to hold men inexcusable. Man cannot presume to play the pseudo-intellectual game, “Well, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to prove one way or the other. I am agnostic.” It is not sufficient enough to save man but sufficient enough to condemn him. Continue reading →

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 3

1 Reply

STUDY SESSION 3

Introduction (pp. 41-55)

Christian will meet with false professors as well as good brethren in the faith. In this study, Christian will encounter the Porter and the Beautiful House.

Readers

Narrator (41) – large amount of reading

Christian (42)

“there came one to him” (42) – one line

Timorous (42) – very small amount

Mistrust (42) – very small amount

Porter named “Watchful” (45, 53)

Discretion (48) – short

Piety (48) – a good amount

Prudence (50) – a page

Charity (51) – almost two pages

Vocabulary

amain (42) = with all your strength (adv.)

chid (44) = chided, scolded, rebuked

benighted (45) = in a pitiful condition or overtaken by darkness

doleful (45) = woeful, sorrowful, sad, etc.

ake (49) = ache

conversation (52) = this word often means one’s lifestyle, behavior

accoutred (55) = clothed or equipped

Questions (pp. 41-55)

Page #

41 Must every believer climb up the hill (Difficulty)? Why or why not? What if the person says that he has not met with any difficulties? (see Lions†)

42 What is Bunyan saying when he mentions that the “Roll fell out of his hand”? What was the lesson in this incident (44)? What does the loss of the Roll represent?

44 What is “sinful sleep”? [“He that sleeps is a loser.” 42]

48 What does this [Beautiful] “House” represent?

50 Christian said that he had “much shame and detestation” when he thought about the Countrey he left. Is this the experience of all true Christians? What if the overall (secret) tendency and affection is to yearn for that Countrey? What does this show? (see Observations and Notes)

50 Prudence asks about the country Christian left and wondered he still had remnants of that country in him (“Do you not yet beat away with you some of the things that then you were conversant withal?). What was his answer and what does it illustrate?

50 How does Christian get strength to fight his inner corruptions? What are the “Golden Hours”?

51-2 Explain what Christian means when he says, “I know also that a man by his conversation, may soon overthrow what by argument or perswasion he doth labour to fasten upon others for their good.”

52 What do you suppose the “supper” represented?

53 What do you think the “Study” represents? What happened in the study?

54 Christian is led into the “Armory.” Again, what do you think this represents? Do all Christians avail themselves of this? How is the “Armory” related to the “Study”?

Observations & Notes

LIONS (42)

Unlike our generation, many believers were jailed for their convictions. Baptists and other Non-Conformists did not follow the Church of England or the established church of the land. They were not allowed to preach or meet without conforming to the religion of the land (that is why some of them “Pilgrims” went to America and Holland). Bunyan most likely was referring to the civil and ecclesiastical powers that vexed him and other believers.

However, on p. 45 we read: “fear not the Lions, for they are Chained; and are placed there for trial of faith where it is; and for discovery of those that have none…” This suggests it may simply be the trials we meet on our pilgrimage. If they are before the House Beautiful, then it may be best to view the lions as trials and persecutions believers encounter in their endeavors to attend the church.

HOUSE BEAUTIFUL (45)

This represents the church. Cheever says, “It is well to remark here that the House Beautiful stands beside the road; it does not cross it, so as to make the strait and narrow way run through it, so as that there is no possibility of continuing in that way without passing through it.”[1] He takes this to be Bunyan’s way of saying that the Visible Church is not necessary to salvation. Several other comments are offered. Perhaps Cheever’s point is not entirely accurate. Whatever he should draw from this imagery, the church is necessary (though not absolutely in the Roman Catholic sense). She is the body of Christ and no man is ordinarily saved outside of the visible church. Yet, his point that “he staid not there for pleasure; that was not the end of the journey, nor the object of it” (p. 307) is worthy of note.

ROLL (45)

“For this Roll was the assurance of his life, and acceptance at the desired Haven.” (45) He also calls it his “Evidence” (47) — “but that in my sleep I lost my Evidence…” Assurance can be lost and regained. It is often lost when we sin (as in this case).

SHAME AND DETESTATION (50)

“Those who stood by and observed Prudence wondered at her delight in the sad discourse on which the pilgrim now entered. But she had her own reasons for her delight in this particular kind of discourse, and it was seldom that she lighted on a pilgrim who both understood her questions and responded to them as did this man now sitting beside her. Now, my brethren, all parable apart, is that your religious experience? Are you full of shame and detestation at your inward cogitations? Are you tormented, enslaved, and downright cursed with your own evil thoughts?” (Whyte, Bunyan Characters, First Series, 152-153)

GOLDEN HOURS (50)

“The golden hours, (fleeting and precious,) are earnests of the everlasting holy felicity of heaven.” (Thomas Scott, 71)

ARMORY (54)

“The following allusions in the scriptural history, which have a peculiar propriety in a allegory, intimates that the means of grace are made effectual by the power of God, which we should depend on, in implicit obedience to his appointments.” (Thomas Scott, 76) Also note, there is no armor on our backs (which we will see on p. 55).

[1] George B. Cheever, Lectures on the Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1891?), 306.

Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church

a pca congregation

Author Archives: Mark Herzer

Larger Catechism, #70 [Excursus: Paul vs. James?]

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 3]

PART 3

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 2]

The Larger Catechism

PART 2

Larger Catechism, #70 [pt. 1]

The Larger Catechism

Chapter 10, When will we stop eating the Lord’s Supper?

Chapter 9, What should I do after the Lord’s Supper?

Intinction

Proverbs 3:1-12

Proverbs 3:1-12

The Larger Catechism, #2

The Larger Catechism

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 3

STUDY SESSION 3