REFORMATION POST: Two Books on Justification, and Thoughts on the Office of Believers

Happy Reformation Day!

Contrary to Bergoglio's wishful thinking (according to which the Reformation is over) and in opposition to Peter Leithart's claim according to which the Reformation failed (that is, paraphrased, it failed because it did not promote and/or it failed to actualize Leithart's own contemporary ecumenical ideology that the 16th century Reformation never ever intended to achieve), today is a day that testifies to the fact that the Triune God and his gospel will always win, even when things look as dark as they can be. Today is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Today, 31 October 1517, 500 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. 

To commemorate this vital event, in addition to having worked for the publication of my book, I would also like to suggest two books from which I have greatly benefited. The first is an old but gold, the second is a book published just this year. 

A picture of the unabridged version of Luther's

Commentary on Galatians that I own.

The first book I am referring to is Luther's monumental Commentary On Galatians. It is a repetitive book, but that is not an accident nor a negative thing. In fact, Luther himself says several times that the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone is too important, and natural man is so prone to forget it, that it needs to be repeated and expounded continually. More importantly, this volume shows Luther at the best of his exegetical, theological, and pastoral genius.  Regarding exegesis, Luther demolishes the erroneous interpretations of the epistle to the Galatians, such as the most peculiar claim according to which Paul, in saying that we are not justified by the law, is referring only to the civil and ceremonial law. Theologically (and, I would personally add, philosophically), the commentary presents Luther as a man of unshakable commitment to the Biblical gospel of justification by faith alone, as well as of the atoning death of Christ and of penal substitution and imputation, all points that he was totally adamant to maintain and not to compromise with anyone. Pastorally, it is a sweet spiritual medicine for the soul, where Luther continually comforts the reader with the gospel of pure grace, exhorting him to look away from himself or herself and to fix the eyes only on Christ for salvation and any spiritual good, also in the light of Luther's encouraging accounts of his own intense temptations and dreadful depressions (other than myself, also John Bunyan witnesses [see 129-130] of the great usefulness of the book in this regard). There is an abridged version of this commentary online for free, and also a very nice abridged paperback. For the real nerds, there are the Luther's Works series, Volume 1 and 2. To the reader who has enough time but not enough money for the LW series, I warmly suggest taking the time to read the unabridged version, available in one or two published versions, and one free online.

Available both in America and Europe.

The second book I would like to recommend is, as I said, a recent publication: Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed, by Prof emeritus David J. Engelsma. I do not intend to compare Engelsma to Luther (Engelsma himself would reject the comparison), but I find some similarities between Luther's Commentary on Galatians and Engelsma's book. Firstly, the book is exegetical: Engelsma not only offer coherent and sound exegesis of the relevant Scriptural passages, but he also inflicts deadly blows not only to the Roman Catholic interpretations of those Biblical places, but also the more nominally Protestant versions of justification by faith and works, such as the unbiblical teaching of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul (regarding the latter, Engelsma efficaciously shows that these "New" Perspectives are not new at all, but are the old "gospel" of faith and works with a different and perhaps more academic appearance). Secondly, the book is outstandingly theological in that it interacts not only with the Protestant confessions and creeds but also with a wide range of orthodox (and unorthodox) sources. Thirdly, the book is pastoral. Engelsma rightly recognizes the vital role of justification by grace alone through faith alone both for the preservation of the instituted church of Christ and for the spiritual health and comfort of the believers. I do not hesitate to say that the love for the church and for the individual believer is the main reason that led Engelsma to write this book, a book born "out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light," to use Luther's words. In this latest regard, the book is also repetitive, and this is meant in a good way, namely, in the same sense that Luther's commentary is repetitive: the author regularly reminds the needy believer of the gospel of grace alone through faith alone. Engelsma's book also treats other important theological doctrines (such as God's unconditional covenant of grace with his elect people) and, with its polemics against modern distortions of justification, it makes a great couple with Luther's commentary.

I would also like to make some considerations about the doctrine of the office of believers in connection with the current controversies within Protestantism. This is because more and more frequently I read from some leaders and non-leaders (especially some of those who identify themselves with the New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision) patronizing and condescending words and tones towards those who hold to justification by grace alone through faith alone, excluding works as a cause or condition of salvation. When you criticize a Federal Visionist or a FV inclined guy (or New Perspective guy, or any other modern justification by faith and works guy), some of the answers I have often come across are:

1) you misunderstood him (greatest hit)
2) you do not have enough theological degrees or peer-reviewed published papers to have something serious to say
3) you are disqualified because have not read enough some forgotten fantastically decisive and greatly relevant personal notes in Latin by some past Protestant theologian
4) you are "uncharitable"
5) a combination of the previous 4, or all of them together.

The following is only one of many examples that can be found in books or on social media.

"The controversy about Shepherd has become so heated that some of his critics, including official statements of two denominations, have accused him of denying the gospel or of preaching 'another gospel.' In the light of Shepherd’s writing here, quite consistent with his writings elsewhere, it should be plain that such criticisms are stupid, irresponsible, and divisive. Theological professors who make such comments, in my judgment, do not have the intellectual, theological, or spiritual maturity to prepare students for gospel ministry." - John Frame, in P. Andrew Sandlin, Backbone of the Bible (Covenant Media Foundation, 2004), xii. Emphasis added.

So, according to Frame, if a theological professor accuses Shepherd to promote an unbiblical message, this person does not possess "intellectual" (my point 1), "theological" (point 2 and 3), "or spiritual maturity" (point 4): a good example of point 5. And if this is the sentence upon theological professor, one wonders what kind of judgment Frame has towards non-academic or laypeople who reject Shepherd's teaching. I am not aware of any apology issued by Frame for this grossly grandiose assertion. Apology or not, the point is that this attitude and tone is clearly present among many FV and NPOP supporters. 

One never wins with them, one seems to be always wrong by definition, by the very fact of disagreeing with them, either because "unlearned," or unable not to "misunderstand" any given point, or because of any other similar irrelevant claim. According to some of these individuals, if one dares to criticize those theologians who make good works either a cause or a condition of salvation, then these critiques need to get some seminary training and to publish in peer-reviewed journals before they can be taken seriously. It seems to me that this is a sort of modified mild Gnosticism. Although, it has to be said that (some of the ancient) gnostics had at least some explicit (although erroneous) philosophical reasons upon which they grounded their intellectual snobbery. In the cases I am referring to, the attitude most often does not seem to be anything but a mere "Well, you disagree because you are stupid and/or ignorant." As a consequence of that, in the contexts at issue, justification is sometimes depicted a mere "academic question." Whether Paul wrote or not Hebrews is a mere academic question, not justification. Luther and Calvin were not willing to go to the steak for a mere "academic question" (Luther and Calvin whom, of course, according to some FV people also supposedly agree with them, according to the theological monopoly that some of the FVists want to impose basically over most of the Christian theological production).

Of course, these sorts of attitudes are an implicit but clear denial of the Biblical teaching of the office of believers, beautifully expounded in Luther's Freedom of the Christian. However, I am not entirely surprised by these attitudes, and the reason is strictly connected to the doctrine of justification: when one loses the Biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, also the right view of the law is inevitably distorted (the "law of love," as Luther calls it in his commentary to Galatians). In this cases, academic learning, at least in a sense, takes the place of what once was the supposed spiritual superiority of monks and nuns in the monasteries. It is also in opposition against these unchristian behaviors that I desired to recommend here the two books described above, two books that encourage, equip, and tell us that every Christian, scholar or not, has not only the right but also the spiritual ability to promote, in Christian love and truth, the true Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and to condemn any teaching that opposes it. 

"This doctrine [of justification by grace alone through faith alone] can never be taught, urged, and repeated enough. If this doctrine be lost, then is also the whole knowledge of truth, life, and salvation lost and gone. If this doctrine flourishes, then all good things flourish, religion, the true service of God, the glory of God, the right knowledge of all things and states of life." ~ Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (London: James Clarke, 1961), 21.

Sola Fide.
Sola Scriptura.
Solus Christus.
Sola Gratia.
Soli Deo Gloria.

©

Subordinationism (3): Aquinas

What follows is merely a collection of quotations from Thomas Aquinas dedicated to the topic of the equality of the three persons of the Trinity. Aquinas is one of my subsidiary interests. He is a systematic and (needless to say) deep writer. This is to say that I need more time and reading in order to expound further without sounding repetitive. However, one thing seems clear to me: one of Aquinas' intentions is to avoid and/or reject the ancient error of subordinationism.

Compendium of Theology, Chapter 43 (The Divine Word not Distinct from the Father in Time, Species, or Nature): "Among things that are not distinct in essence, there can be no distinction according to species, time, or nature. Therefore, since the Word is consubstantial with the Father, He cannot differ from the Father in any of these respects. There can be no difference according to time. The divine Word is present in God for the reason that God understands Himself, thereby conceiving His intelligible Word. Hence, if at any time there were no Word of God, during that period God would not understand Himself. But God always understood Himself during His whole existence, for His understanding is His existence. Therefore His Word, also, existed always. And so in the rule of Catholic faith we say that the Son of God 'is born of the Father before all ages.'"

Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Q. 42 (Equality and Likeness Among the Divine Persons), A. 1 (Whether there is equality in God)): "We must needs admit equality among the divine persons. For, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 15,16, 17), equality signifies the negation of greater or less. Now we cannot admit anything greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De Trin. i): "They must needs admit a difference [namely, of Godhead] who speak of either increase or decrease, as the Arians do, who sunder the Trinity by distinguishing degrees as of numbers, thus involving a plurality." Now the reason of this is that unequal things cannot have the same quantity. But quantity, in God, is nothing else than His essence. Wherefore it follows, that if there were any inequality in the divine persons, they would not have the same essence; and thus the three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must therefore admit equality among the divine persons."

Part 1, Q. 42, A. 2 (Whether the person proceeding is co-eternal with His principle, as the Son with the Father): "We must say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. In proof of which we must consider that for a thing which proceeds from a principle to be posterior to its principle may be due to two reasons: one on the part of the agent, and the other on the part of the action. On the part of the agent this happens differently as regards free agents and natural agents. In free agents, on account of the choice of time; for as a free agent can choose the form it gives to the effect, as stated above (I:41:2), so it can choose the time in which to produce its effect. In natural agents, however, the same happens from the agent not having its perfection of natural power from the very first, but obtaining it after a certain time; as, for instance, a man is not able to generate from the very first. Considered on the part of action, anything derived from a principle cannot exist simultaneously with its principle when the action is successive. So, given that an agent, as soon as it exists, begins to act thus, the effect would not exist in the same instant, but in the instant of the action's termination. Now it is manifest, according to what has been said (I:41:2), that the Father does not beget the Son by will, but by nature; and also that the Father's nature was perfect from eternity; and again that the action whereby the Father produces the Son is not successive, because thus the Son would be successively generated, and this generation would be material, and accompanied with movement; which is quite impossible. Therefore we conclude that the Son existed whensoever the Father existed and thus the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with both."

Part 2, Q. 42, A. 4 (Whether the Son is equal to the Father in greatness): "The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness. For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature. Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of the nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the principle of generation it should happen otherwise. From what precedes (I:27:2; I:33:3), it is evident that in God there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change. Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in greatness. Hence, Hilary says (De Synod. Can. 27): 'Remove bodily weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the father's equal, because he has a like nature.'"

Part 1, Q. 42, A. 6 (Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power): "The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in power. Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In creatures, for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the greater power is there for action. Now it was shown above (Article 4) that the very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires that the Son should be the Father's equal in greatness--that is, in perfection of nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to the Father in power; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in relation to both."

The Compendium, though incomplete, is still a very helpful summary of Aquinas' theology, and I personally find it a great introduction to his thought (after perhaps his On Being and Essence). Summa Theologiae does not need any introduction. I will only say that, although I have reported here only a selection of quotations from 1:42, the entire section is very worth meditating. 

©