November 2001
Volume 35, Number 1
In This Issue:
Come Out From Among Them: ‘Anti-Nicodemite’ Writings of John Calvin, by John Calvin. Tr. Seth Skolnitsky. Dallas, Texas: Protestant Heritage Press, 2001. 317pp. $29.95 (cloth). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Treatises against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, by John Calvin. Tr. and ed. Benjamin Wirt Farley. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. 336 pp. $29.99 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics, Roy B. Zuck, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996. Pp. 320. (No price) (paper). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Guilt, Grace and Gratitude, Lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism by George W. Bethune. First published by Sheldon & Company, New York, 1864. Reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust, 3 Murray Field Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Two Volumes. Hardcover. $49.99. [Reviewed by Arie denHartog.]
Christ Preeminent: A Commentary on Colossians. Alden A. Gannett. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998. 109 pages. (paper). [Reviewed by Russell J. Dykstra.]
Saving Grace, by John
Cheeseman. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999. 136pp. + viii. Paper, $7.99.
[Reviewed by Russell J. Dykstra.]
Prof. Russell J. Dykstra concludes his
fascinating study of the late medieval theologian Thomas Bradwardine by
outlining Bradwardine’s polemic against Pelagianism on the errors of
“meritorious good works” and Rome’s “sacrament” of penance. Dykstra points out that while Bradwardine
was strong on the doctrines of the sovereignty of God and double predestination,
he manifested a serious weakness in his doctrine of sin. That weakness, Dykstra contends, “…begins
with his failure to recognize the serious consequences of original sin.” This led to Bradwardine’s failure to see the
great contrast between “the horrible depths of sin [and] the greatness of
grace.” Dykstra concludes his study by
pointing out that the rejection of Bradwardine by the churchmen indicates that
there was no room in the church of his day for the truth of sovereign, double
predestination. Positively, God was
preparing the way, however, through Bradwardine’s work, for the reformation of
his church.
The Rev. Lau Chin Kwee, a graduate of the
Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary, contributes the first part of an
in-depth study of the Serious Call of the Gospel. In this two-part series Pastor Lau exposes convincingly the
errors of the notion of “the well-meant offer of the gospel.”
Prof. David J. Engelsma writes an extensive review of Peter A.
Lillback’s book, The Binding of God:
Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Engelsma calls the book, “an unconvincing
treatment of a worthwhile subject: the doctrine of the covenant in John
Calvin.”
Undersigned continues his exegetical study
of The Epistle to Titus.
We also offer a number of book reviews.
An Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to Titus (4)
The reader is reminded that this exposition of the epistle to Titus was first given in the form of “chapel talks” by the author at the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services at the seminary. The author began the exposition in the 1997-1998 school year and completed the series the second semester of the 1999 - 2000 school year. This exposition is being published in the Journal with the hope that it will prove helpful to a wider audience of the people of God in their study of this brief letter in the sacred Scriptures. So that both those able to work with the Greek language and those unable to do so may benefit from this study, all references to the Greek will be placed in footnotes. The translation of the Greek text is the author’s. We present this exposition pretty much as it was spoken in the chapel services, application and all. Perhaps this will help the reader gain some insight into what goes on in the seminary.
Chapter One
Verse 10
In the preceding verses the inspired
apostle has greeted his legitimate, spiritual son, Titus, the minister he has
left to shepherd the church in Crete (vv. 1 - 4). The apostle exhorted Titus to “set in order the things that are
lacking, and ordain elders in every city” (v. 5). In the next section the apostle lays out the gifts/qualifications
a man needs in order to serve in the office of elder in the church (vv. 5 - 9).
With verse 10 the apostle begins the
concluding section of chapter one of this letter to Titus. Verse ten reads as follows:
For there are many, even1 unruly, vain talkers, and deceivers chiefly2 they out of the circumcision.
Though
this be a new section, it is linked to the preceding by the conjunction gar,
which means “for.” Hence the apostle
states the reason for the preceding.
Titus must set in order the things which are lacking by ordaining gifted/qualified
elders for the church. These elders
must be “holding fast the reliable word” which Paul taught them, so as to be
able by the sound doctrine of that reliable word both to exhort, encourage the
faithful, and refute the gainsayers.
This is the elders’ calling because there are many unruly, vain talkers
and deceivers in the churches.
These the apostle describes as “unruly.”3 The term means ones who cannot be subject to
control. The idea is that these are men
who cannot be subjected to the control of the truth of God’s Word. Because they are uncontrollable, they are
disobedient to the Word of God.
Furthermore, they are “vain talkers.”4 A “vain
talker” is an idle talker, one who speaks empty, senseless things. Vain is this kind of talker because his
speech is empty, of no substance. There
is nothing of positive value in what he has to say. His talk is empty because it lacks biblical content. Lacking biblical content, his talking
contains nothing which would instruct, guide, correct, or edify the people of
God. These evil men are marked by a
third characteristic, viz., they are “deceivers.”5 This word
means, literally, a mind-deceiver or a seducer. This is what these men do!
They seduce, deceive God’s people, and they do this especially by
lying. They present the lie as if it
were the truth.
There is a relationship among the
characteristics of these evil men in the churches. Because they cannot be subjected to the Word of God, their talk,
their speech, lacks the edifying substance of God’s Word. They, therefore, by their unruly behavior
and empty speech deceive God’s people.
What is more, these evil men are “chiefly
the ones of or out of the circumcision.”
In other words, most of these evil men in the churches were Jewish
“converts.” Not all of them, but most
were of the “circumcision party or faction” in the churches. These, because they were Jews, thought
probably that they ought to be looked up to.
This same expression is used elsewhere in several New Testament passages
to refer to Jewish members of the church.6 These evil
men insisted that Gentile members of the churches had to be circumcised and had
to observe other Jewish rites and rules as well.
Concerning these evil men, there are
several truths we ought to note:
1. There
were many, not a few, but many of these plaguing the churches with their
deception. William Hendriksen writes,
“…they existed in alarming numbers in the church.”7
2. These
are always to be found in the church.
Holy Scripture warns of this often and in many ways. This same apostle warned another of his
spiritual sons, the young preacher Timothy, of this very fact.8 The inspired apostle Peter warns us that just as there were false
prophets in the Old Testament church, so there will be false teachers in the
New Testament church. These will
privily bring in damnable heresies and many will follow their pernicious ways.9 We must as preachers and as those who aspire
to that sacred office be aware of this truth!
These evil men are always present in and must be opposed by the church.
3. These
men are deliberately evil. They are
consciously out to destroy the church.
They are not sincere, godly men who happen to hold unwittingly to some
minor errors. No, these men know the
truth and deliberately reject and deny it.
What is more, they attempt to convince others to believe and follow
their heretical teachings. We must make
no mistake about this. Their talk is
empty because it is devoid of the truth of the gospel. They are devoid of the gospel because they
in their disobedience refuse to subject themselves to the Word of God. They are out to seduce the people of God.
4. We
need to do battle against them and expose them and refute their erroneous
teachings. If they remain impenitent,
we need to put them out of the church by way of the exercise of church
discipline. The only weapon we have to
accomplish this is the sound doctrines of the Word of God.
An indispensable aspect of our preaching,
therefore, must be that it be antithetical, sharply and distinctively
antithetical. We must not hesitate to
refute the false teachers, the disobedient, vain talkers and deceivers. If we fail in this we shall be held
accountable by God and His Christ for allowing the church to be led away and
corrupted by these evil men.
Hence, be positive in your preaching. Comfort, encourage, instruct God’s people by
means of the preaching of the Word. But
do not shrink from being negative in the right sense of that word. The right sense of “negative” is that we
refute the false teachings of the evil deceivers who never cease to trouble
God’s church.
Verses 11, 12
(11) Whose mouths must be stopped (“whom it is necessary to silence by stopping the mouth” is the literal translation), who overthrow (the AV translates this “subvert”) whole houses, teaching things which they ought not in favor of (or “for the pleasure of”)10 base gain (the AV translates the phrase, “for filthy lucre’s sake”).
(12) One of them, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts (wild, ferocious, savage),11 idle or lazy bellies.
In these verses the apostle continues his
description of the unruly, vain-talking deceivers whose false teachings Titus
and all faithful ministers of the Word must refute by means of teaching the sound
doctrine of the reliable Word of God.
Do not fail to note that the Holy Spirit, who inspired this Word of God,
does not hesitate to use very sharp, strong language. One who would be a faithful preacher in today’s church must do no
less!
The mouths of these deceivers must be
stopped. The Greek puts it a little
stronger, “Whom it is necessary to silence by stopping the mouths….” The mouths of these deceivers must be stopped. It is necessary that they be silenced. This, you understand, is divine necessity! The teaching of these deceivers must be
clearly, sharply refuted, shown to be false by means of the bishops’ teaching
the sound doctrine of the Word of God.
Should these deceivers continue to teach
their heresies, they must be silenced by the application of Christian
discipline, even to the point of “the extreme remedy,” excommunication from the
church and kingdom of heaven. It is
necessary!
The reason these must be silenced is the
terrible consequences their false teaching has on God’s church. It is not just a few, one or two, members of
the church who are led astray by the vain talk of these deceivers. They subvert or overthrow whole houses! John Calvin, commenting on this clause, is
certainly correct when he writes:
If the faith of one individual were in danger of being overturned (for we are speaking of the perdition of a single soul redeemed by the blood of Christ) the pastor should immediately gird himself for the combat; how much less tolerable is it to see whole houses overturned?12
These deceivers subvert whole houses by
“teaching things which they ought not.”
Their teachings contradict the truth of the Word of God. What is more, they are dishonest in their
presentation of their false teachings.
II Peter 2:1 - 3
and
Jude 4
warn us that these deceivers “privily bring in their
damnable heresies” and “creep into the church unawares.”
Hence, as preachers and those who aspire
to that holy office of Christ, we must take great care that we teach the truth
of Scripture. And we must constantly be
on our guard, so that we are able to discern even the slightest departure from
the truth of God’s Word.
The apostle also exposes the evil motive
of these deceivers. They teach things
which they ought not, “in favor of” or “for the pleasure of base gain.”13 The deceivers
do not teach because they want the church to be edified and grow in the
knowledge of her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
They emphatically do not desire the church to grow in the grace of her
Lord.
The deceivers teach their damnable
heresies for base gain! Their desire is
to get rich, wealthy in earthly things.
They love money and what it can buy?
Money cannot buy the grace of salvation in Jesus Christ. It can only buy earthly things. Motivated by covetousness and with “feigned words (they) make merchandise” of God’s people
(II Pet. 2:3).
Along with this love of money, the deceivers
want the “base gain” of the praise of men.
Power and prestige are their aim.
Interestingly enough, the Holy Spirit uses
one of their own prophets to condemn them:
“The Cretans are always liars” (v. 12).
That, at bottom, is what all of their teaching is: lies.
This is why they ought not teach these things. The reference is to heresy, false doctrine, the lie in all of its
many and various forms as it stands in flat contradiction of the truth of the
Word of God.
Let it not escape us, if this be what the
Holy Spirit calls heresy, this is what we must call it too. And we must exert ourselves to expose these
gainsaying deceivers. They are all
about us, and they threaten our churches and their members too. Let no one, no matter how vehemently men may
criticize us, let no one deter us from this important aspect of the work of the
ministry.
Two striking metaphors are used by the
Holy Spirit in verse 12 to describe these deceivers. They are “evil beasts.”
Literally, they are fierce, ferocious, wild, wicked beasts, beasts of
prey. That’s an apt figure of speech
because in the spiritual sense the deceivers devour God’s people! They are also “slow bellies.” Idle, lazy bellies are what the deceivers
are! The apostle uses a similar expression in
Philippians 3:19,
where he describes the ones whom we must not
emulate as those “whose god is their belly.”14 These
deceivers are lazy gluttons who satiate themselves with the things earthly, the
world’s lust, pleasures, and treasures.
Verses 13, 14
(13) This witness is true, for which cause15 rebuke (admonish) them sharply (abruptly, curtly) in order that they may be sound (healthy, well) in the faith.
(14) Not giving heed to (applying oneself to) Jewish fables (myths, falsehoods) and commandments of men, turning themselves away from the truth.16
“This witness is true,” writes the
apostle, i.e., the witness of the prophet of the Cretans mentioned in verse 12,
who said, “the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” This witness is true. The Cretans were notorious liars, evil,
ferocious, wild beasts, and lazy gluttons.
Because this is true, Titus and the
bishops must rebuke them, admonish them sharply, abruptly, curtly. Titus must do this. He must sharply admonish the Jewish, unruly,
vain talkers! He must sharply admonish
them to stop their vain talking and deception.
Also today the bishops must sharply rebuke the vain talkers and
deceivers. They must stop their lying!
The purpose of this sharp admonition is,
“that they may be sound (in the sense of healthy, well) in the faith.” Their vain speech and their deceiving of the
people of God indicate that, at best, they are very weak, at worst, sick unto
death as regards the faith. Faith here
must be understood in the objective sense, as the body of truth or doctrine
taught in the Word of God. That truth
is the very opposite of the vain, futile, empty talk of the false
teachers. If the latter will be sound,
healthy in the faith, they will need to repent of their vain talking and
deceiving of God’s people and they will teach the truth.
That this is the correct sense of the
passage is evident from what the apostle writes in verse 14. These deceivers were turning themselves away
from the truth. There is only one
truth, viz., the truth revealed in God’s Word!
They were turning themselves away from that truth precisely by giving
heed or applying themselves to Jewish fables and commandments of men. Jewish fables are literally myths,
falsehoods, lies. The “commandments of
men” are just that. They are commandments
not given by God, but by men! No doubt
the reference is to their phariseeistic interpretations of the Word and
especially the law of God.
In other words, the apostle is warning
Titus concerning the same falsehoods, myths which Jesus so sharply condemned in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5:17 - 48).
What our Lord called “the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,”
the apostle calls, “Jewish fables and commandments of men.” Repeatedly in the Matthew passage, Jesus
exposes the error of these Jewish myths and commandments of men with the
formula “Ye have heard that it hath been said … but I say unto you,” and then
Jesus would explain the true meaning of God’s commandments. Not only did Jesus expose these myths and commandments of men in
Matthew 5,
but it may correctly be said that His entire
ministry was a polemic against the Jewish fables and commandments of men about
which the apostle is here warning Titus.
This passage teaches that in order that
these Jewish, vain, unruly talkers may be sound in the faith, Titus must
admonish them sharply from the Word of God.
These unruly, vain talkers will be sound in the faith only when they
cease turning away from the truth of God’s Word and only when they cease
applying themselves to Jewish myths and falsehoods. Only when this happens will the church be edified and preserved
in the faith and truth of God’s Word.
Let us who are called of God to minister
to the contemporary church be warned.
This is an ever present danger in the church. We must be alert to this and not hesitate to rebuke sharply the
vain, unruly talkers in order that they may be sound in the faith and in order
that the church may be preserved and blessed.
Again, if the vain talkers persist in their deceitful ways by refusing
to heed the sharp admonitions of the faithful preachers, they must be put out
of the church by means of the application of Christian discipline.
Verses 15, 16
(15) All things are pure to the ones who are pure, but to the ones defiled (polluted, stained, contaminated) and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both the mind and conscience of them have been defiled.
(16) They profess to know God, but by their works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient,17 and regarding every good work reprobate.
These verses form the conclusion of this
last section of chapter one. These
Jewish vain talkers, who teach false doctrines for shameful gain (AV, “filthy
lucre’s sake”), whose mouths must be stopped, and who must be rebuked sharply,
really deny the freedom with which Christ has made us free.18 The
interpretations and applications of the typical commandments of God, by these
“Judaizers,” regarding what may or may not be eaten because it is clean or
unclean, and especially their interpretations of the ceremonial laws, are in
fact a denial of what James calls “the perfect law of liberty”
(James 1:25).
“To the pure all things are pure,” writes
the apostle. The “all things” are
simply everything that God created to be received by us with thanksgiving,
including “meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (see
I Tim. 4:1 - 4).
Every creature of God is good because it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer
(I Tim. 4:5).
The Jewish vain talkers taught that some
foods were unclean and, therefore, impure and not to be eaten. Scripture here maintains that the impurity
is not in God’s creatures, but in the heart of a man. Jesus taught the same. It
is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man. It is what comes from a man’s heart and thus that goes out of a
man that defiles him. Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, and all the rest (cf.
Matt. 15:1
-
20). Hence the creature of God is good
and pure; it does not make a person unclean.
“The ones pure” are those whose sins have
been forgiven in the blood of Jesus, those who have been raised up to newness
of life by the resurrection of Jesus.
The pure are the regenerated, justified, sanctified believers who are
continually being cleansed by the Spirit and Word of Jesus Christ. To these pure saints, all that God has
created, also “meats,” is pure. He
receives it from God with thanksgiving.
And he uses it in the service of God.
But to “the ones defiled (polluted,
stained, contaminated) and unbelieving,” nothing is pure. These defiled and unbelieving are one class
of people. They are defiled exactly because
they are unbelievers. They have
rejected Christ. They refuse to believe
in Jesus and, therefore, they are polluted, they are yet in their sins. They defile God’s good creatures. To them nothing is pure!
Nothing is pure to these unbelievers
because even their mind and conscience is defiled. Their mind is their thinking, that which determines their willing
and acting. The minds of these
unbelievers are polluted, defiled, stained.
Their conscience, that which Hendriksen calls “their moral selves” is
defiled too.19 “Conscience” literally means “to know with,”
i.e., “joint-knowledge.”20 The believer,
according to his conscience, knows with God what is true and what is false;
what is good and what is evil; what is pure and what is impure. The vain talking Jewish unbelievers
concerning whom the apostle warns Titus, the preacher, refuse to know with God
what is right and wrong. Their
consciences are seared with a hot iron and, therefore, polluted with sin. To them nothing is pure.
These vain talkers, according to verse 16,
profess to know God. They talk as if
they, more than all others in the church, know God. With their rules and regulations; with their forbidding to marry
and their abstaining from meats; with their interpretations of the law, they
profess to know God. But their
profession, their talk, is vain. It’s
futile and empty.
It is that because by their works they
deny God. Their so-called observance of
the law is really a denial of God and His Word and law. By so doing, and now the apostle uses very
sharp, strong language, these vain talkers are abominable, i.e.,
detestable. God detests them. They are disobedient in the sense of it
being impossible to convince them of their error and, thus, persuade them of
the truth.
This is underscored by the last clause of
the text, “and regarding or pertaining to every good work reprobate.” A good work is:21
1. Performed
out of faith, it is a fruit of faith.
These vain talkers are unbelieving, they have no faith.
2. Performed
according to the law of God. The vain
talkers, to borrow Jesus’ language in describing the Pharisees, teach for doctrine the commandments of men
(Matt. 15:9).
The vain talkers give heed to Jewish myths.
3. Performed
to the glory of God. The vain talkers
subvert whole houses and deceive God’s people for shameful gain.
Indeed,
they are reprobate regarding every good work.
They are totally depraved, unable to do any good at all. Titus must, therefore, rebuke them sharply. We too, as bishops in God’s church, must
preach, teach sound doctrine. We must
do this antithetically. Sharply we must
warn the people of God against the vain talking deceivers. We must do this in order to edify God’s
people.
Thomas Bradwardine: Forgotten Medieval Augustinian (3)
Russell J. Dykstra
Salvation by Grace
In harmony with the doctrines of the
sovereignty of God and sovereign predestination, Bradwardine insists that
salvation is of grace. By that he means both that salvation is a gracious, that
is, unmerited gift, and that salvation is worked by the power of God’s grace.
In the preface to The Cause of God he complains, “How many, today, O
Lord, with Pelagius, oppose Thy freely given grace… and believe that only by
their free will can they gain their salvation.”1
A key issue that he faces in this
connection is the matter of merit. The doctrine of merit was deeply ingrained
in the church in Bradwardine’s day. It was a significant part of Pelagius’
theology in the fourth century. Pelagius insisted that natural, fallen man is
able to do good. He maintained that there are three aspects to a good work of
man – the ability, the will, and the act itself. He taught that God graciously
made man with the ability to do good (part of God’s grace given at creation),
and that man – also after the fall – has the will and the power to do good
works. The only additional grace needed is an external grace given through the
good influence of the example of Christ and by the preaching of the law. Thus
man can do good and in fact merited saving grace by so doing.
Even though Augustine had effectively
rejected Pelagianism, the Semi-Pelagianism that arose after Augustine still
maintained that fallen man, being sick but not dead, has the power to do good.
That teaching had taken over in the church, with the result that it was
commonly assumed that fallen man has a free will, and can do good that will
merit with God. “Do what is in you” the theologians urged (Facera quod in se
est), that is to say, without grace, do whatever good you can, and God will
reward you. This notion “was as strong in the early fourteenth century as in
any other period of high and late medieval theology.”2
In addition, the scholastics had made
distinctions in the merit that man supposedly could obtain. According to many
medieval theologians, merit of condignity was a merit earned by man
which is rewarded on the basis of justice, that is, God judges that a deed
truly earned merit, and gives to the doer a reward commensurate with the work
performed. Merit of congruity, on the other hand, was not a merit based
strictly on justice, but a merit that God conferred graciously. It was this
latter merit that was supposedly conferred when the sinner, apart from grace,
would “do what is in him.” Hook notes that the fourteenth century theologians
imagined that they had avoided the errors of Pelagianism by denying the merit
of condignity, and affirming only that of congruity.3
Over against this, Bradwardine insists
that man cannot do good apart from the grace of God. By God’s grace,
Bradwardine means not grace as Pelagius taught, namely, an external influence,
but rather a grace working in the man. Yet even with that position Bradwardine
remained a man of his times, and was not able to eliminate all traces of merit
from his theology as Luther and the Reformers would do some 200 years later.
By the fourteenth century, the
scholastics’ systematizing of the doctrine of grace had resulted in many fine
distinctions, and Bradwardine used the accepted terminology.4 He speaks of created grace and
uncreated grace. Uncreated grace is in God’s being, and is His favor towards
men. Bradwardine insists that uncreated grace is the cause for God electing
those whom He did. Created grace, on the other hand, is a power that God works
in man.
Concerning this “created grace,”
Bradwardine holds that it consists of two parts, a preparatory grace (gratia
gratis data) and a saving grace (gratia gratum faciens). The created
grace is necessary for a man to do any work that God will reward. Hence it
follows that no man can do a work that will merit grace. If he does a good
work, he already has grace operating in him. In this connection, Bradwardine
rejects also the good that unbelievers supposedly do by cultivating a good
habit. Without grace, such “good” can only be considered evil.
In addition, Bradwardine is clear that the
saving grace of God is indeed saving. It (gratia gratum faciens) is even
irresistible grace.
However, Bradwardine also teaches that
this created grace, as preparatory grace, is not limited to the elect. In this
Bradwardine is not unlike Augustine, who had the faulty notion that baptism
conferred grace to everyone baptized, a teaching that would produce much
corrupt fruit in the medieval church’s theology and practice.
Concerning the doctrine of justification,
Bradwardine teaches “justification by grace alone without preceding works.”5 This
flows out of predestination, in the way of grace, not because there is cause in
man. God determines the works they will do, gives them the grace to perform the
works, and then rewards them in heaven. This is language that sounds like the
cry of the Reformation of Luther almost 200 years later. However, Oberman notes
the significant difference between Bradwardine and Luther in this connection,
namely, that Bradwardine did not add “sola fidei” (by faith alone).
Bradwardine teaches that man is justified by grace without preceding work.
It is commendable that he sees faith as the root of good works, which are the
result of God’s grace. But he does also view good works as necessary for the
completion of justification and remission.6
Yet it should be noted that although
Bradwardine thus allows for the merit of condignity, he does not view it as an
accomplishment of man. Forgiveness of sins, which also implies remission of
punishment, is not because of merit, but out of grace.7 Bradwardine says explicitly,
“We must conclude with St. Augustine, then, that our merits are God’s gifts,
and when he rewards them, He crowns them not us.”8
The Sacrament of Penance
Even as Pelagius and his followers were
difficult to pin down, so errors of the “Modern Pelagians” of Bradwardine’s day
had to be ferreted out and refuted. Their craftiness was especially evident in
connection with the doctrine of penance. Key to this is the notion of
attrition. Medieval theologians used the term attrition to describe a sorrow
for sin that is not caused by love for God but fear of punishment. Many
theologians taught that attrition was the first step of true penance, leading
to contrition, confession, and satisfaction in the sacrament of penance.
Interestingly, Bradwardine addresses those
who despaired of forgiveness either because of the gravity or the multitude of
their sins. Bradwardine emphasizes the possibility and reality of the
forgiveness of sins. His argument is that man’s sins are finite, but the mercy
and grace of God are infinite. Thus he reassures the penitent believer that the
one who truly repents and confesses his sins may be (to a high degree) assured
of forgiveness and his own salvation.9
Bradwardine faces the question of the
relation between man’s repentance and God’s grace. The Pelagians are of the
opinion that man first repents, thereby meriting grace and justification. Over
against this, Bradwardine defends the position that God first infuses grace
into the sinner, which brings the sinner to repentance.
Bradwardine rejects the notion that
attrition is true repentance. If it exists, it does not merit grace, but is a
“pre-effect” of grace, most likely caused by the preaching.10 In addition, even true repentance is not satisfaction
or a condition by which one obtains forgiveness. If it were, God’s forgiveness
would not be merciful, but only an act of rigid justice.11
At the same time, Bradwardine insists that
God demands a perfect contrition. This over against the Pelagians, who thought
that even a tepid repentance merits remission of guilt and punishment, both
eternal and temporal.12
Bradwardine also maintains that God brings about the repentance.
Concerning the act of repentance,
Bradwardine teaches that the whole act is God’s work. It begins with an
infusion of God’s grace. Oberman explains, “Where light comes, darkness
disappears; infused grace extinguishes sin” immediately.13 The result is a contrite heart. Next comes oral
confession. However, Bradwardine does not hold that oral confession is
essential for remission. Bradwardine views confession as simply naturally
following from the grace of contrition. He illustrates this with the story of
the healing of the ten lepers. “One goes to the priest just as the ten lepers
were sent to the priests by Jesus, namely, in order to show the healing and
not in order to obtain it.”14
Bradwardine maintains that sins are not
remitted through absolution by the priest, “but only God” takes away
sin.15 In fact, according to Bradwardine, God has already
performed the work by infusing grace.
However, Bradwardine leaves room for works
as a part of satisfaction. He does this by distinguishing between the remission
of the guilt of sin and removal of the punishment of sin. First
of all, through repentance “guilt is completely taken away; but
according to the sin committed the punishment remains to be completed.”16 God’s infused grace produces these works and God
accepts them and grants merit.17 Yet Bradwardine holds that good works do not obtain
remission, but good works inevitably follow true repentance. He writes, “A
contrite heart is a sign that sins are dismissed, just as exterior satisfaction
[good works] is a sign of a contrite heart.”18 It is important to keep in mind that the whole of
this work, “infusion of grace, justification and forgiveness, is founded on
God’s predestination” before any previous merits.19
It is disappointing then that in the end
Bradwardine defends the Church’s doctrine of penance and works of penance as
satisfaction of the temporal punishment for sin. He even allows that temporal
“punishments can be remitted for present and future by indulgences which are
drawn from the superfluous wealth of good works of the Church”20 and that absolution by the priest is necessary.
Oberman explains this conclusion – apparently a contradiction with his teaching
on penance – as the influence of the spirit of the age, namely, that having set
forth a number of positions, the theologian would often bow to the teaching of
the Church.21
Bradwardine’s Doctrine of Sin
It is incontrovertible that Bradwardine
strove to maintain the doctrines championed by Augustine against the Pelagians.
And, though the emphasis in Bradwardine’s theology was necessarily different
from Augustine’s due to development of the lie and the various approaches of
the “Modern Pelagians,” to a large degree Bradwardine was a faithful disciple
of Augustine. This is not true, however, in one crucial doctrine, namely, sin.
In this area Bradwardine had a serious weakness.
Bradwardine’s weakness begins with his
failure to recognize the serious consequences of original sin. With Augustine,
he sees all that exists as being good, in that it was created by God and has
form and existence. Evil is the privation of the good. Sin is, then, not in the
act itself, but in the motive. For proof of this, Bradwardine argues that, for
example, homicide is not a sin as such, for then it would be wrong to execute a
murderer. But this leads Bradwardine to conclude that a violation of God’s law
done in ignorance is not sin because the motives were not evil. That, Augustine
did not say. In fact, Augustine insisted that sins of ignorance are a working
out of the horrible depravity of man because of Adam’s fall.
Bradwardine does not give evidence that he
has a grasp of the horrible effect of Adam’s fall. He speaks of the result of
the fall usually in terms of the punishment that God put on man. That is
correct, as such, but it is wholly inadequate. Oberman notes that the
difference between Bradwardine and Augustine is that Bradwardine does not have
a view of sin as a profound debt and a turning away from God. Oberman adds, “It
is obvious that where Bradwardine emphasizes too little the seriousness of sin,
this must also have consequences for the understanding of God’s overwhelming
love in His grace.”22
This weakness is evidenced in that
Bradwardine does not contrast the horrible depths of sin with the greatness of
grace. He rather finds the great contrast between grace and merit.
No doubt this emphasis is due largely to the contest he faces with the “Modern
Pelagians” holding forth the ability of man to merit God’s grace. Yet it is
also plain that Bradwardine had not experienced the intense spiritual struggle
(over sin) of an Augustine, or of a Luther. Therein too may lie one of the
reasons that Bradwardine’s monumental defense of the truth of sovereign
predestination had so little lasting effect. The Cause of God is a
brilliant and scholarly treatise to which the learned of his day reacted. In
contrast with that, Luther’s works address the common believer.
Bradwardine’s Influence and Significance
Determining the influence of Bradwardine
and his thorough refutation of Pelagianism is difficult and puzzling. On the
one hand, the work was apparently widely disseminated and discussed. Courtenay
notes that Bradwardine’s work “was being cited in Paris within a year or two of
its completion in 1344.”23
He adds that
Bradwardine’s thesis quickly became a cause celebre at Oxford and, later, at Paris. Few theologians did not take up the challenge and attempt to protect the freedom of man from what looked to them like a thoroughgoing, predestinarian, even predetermined view of the divine plan. It made Bradwardine a household name among the educated, inside and outside the university, and put forward a particular interpretation of Augustine that had its own long and interesting history.24
That,
in fact, seems to have been the most notable effect – a negative reaction to
the doctrines Bradwardine propounded. The church of that day was, at best,
Semi-Pelagian, and Bradwardine’s theology did not find wide acceptance. Most
seemed to ignore it. A number of theologians reacted against it, though most of
them did not identify Thomas Bradwardine’s theology as the object of their
attack. Oberman demonstrates conclusively that Bradwardine’s contemporary and
fellow Mertonian, Thomas Buckingham, attacked the theology of The Cause of
God in his Questiones. The subtitle reads:
Questions treated by Thomas
Buckingham, late Chancellor of Exeter Cathedral, showing that there is a
Catholic middle course between the errors of Pelagius, Cicero and Scotus and
that eternal predestination, preordination and prevolution are consistent with
freedom of will and human merit.25
At certain points Buckingham even takes
the words of Bradwardine from The Cause of God but adds the word “non”
to take the opposite position from Bradwardine.26 A contemporary (Thomas of Cracow) claims that
Buckingham taught for a time in Paris and there “made a name for himself as a
critic of Bradwardine.”27
John Baconthorp (d. 1348), in his
Commentary on the Sententiae, did attempt to set forth Bradwardine’s
meaning, and in a sense therefore defended Bradwardine. The trouble was that he
did not capture the true meaning of Bradwardine, nor was he uncritical of his
theology.28
Another contemporary reaction to
Bradwardine is found in John Rodington, particularly in his Quodlibet de
Conscientia. Bradwardine’s influence is seen in that Rodington does hold to
predestination, but in effect denies the sovereignty of God and allows that man
can merit eternal life without grace. It is especially in the area of merit and
man’s will that Rodington was reacting against Bradwardine’s theology.29
The controversy did not die out
immediately. Uthred of Bolden (d. 1397), a member of the Benedictine
Order, writes of the fact that the friars and monks were disputing over such
topics as predestination and free will, which discussions became so heated that
the Bishop of Canterbury imposed silence on the men in 1368.30
W. A. Pantin notes another interesting
fact from fourteenth century England. Manuals for parish priests included the Regimen
Animarum. In this manual, the second section deals with the instruction
that the parish priest ought to give to his people. In the chapter on the
virtue of faith is inserted the whole of St. Anselm’s treatise on God’s
foreknowledge and free will. Pantin wonders if this might “be an echo of the
controversies that were being raised about this time by Bradwardine and
Buckingham, and does it represent the intellectual preoccupation of the schools
rather than the practical needs of the average parish? But possibly the
fourteenth-century layman was worried by such questions.” In support of this,
Pantin points to Chaucer’s reference to Bradwardine on predestination and free
will in The Canterbury Tales.31
Another interesting question is the
relationship between Bradwardine and a contemporary, Gregory of Rimini. Gregory
was born in the 1280s at Rimini. He later lectured in the University of Paris.
He too was an avowed Augustinian, maintaining double predestination from
eternity not based on any merit of man. With Bradwardine, he rejects the
existence of merits of condignity.
He apparently knew Bradwardine’s work
because he did criticize it twice in his commentary on the Sententiae,
and that at points where Bradwardine was in fact weak, especially on the
importance of the Fall and the character of sin.32 Both men combated Pelagianism, but Oberman concludes
that they did so independently of each other.
Thus it seems that Bradwardine’s The
Cause of God produced a sharp reaction, but realized no significant or
lasting effect on the church or her doctrine. Two reasons may be adduced for
this fact. The first is that Bradwardine was a scholar, primarily a man of the
universities. Courtenay writes that “ it may be one of the distinguishing
features of a Hus or a Martin Luther that they carried the seriousness of the academic
debate in the classroom into the streets.”
On the other hand, “Bradwardine’s tenacious and provocative Summa de
causa Dei circulated within university circles in England and on the
continent.”33 In that same connection, Alister McGrath
points out that Bradwardine, unlike Gregori of Rimini, was not a member of a
religious order, which order might have promoted Bradwardine’s views. In
addition, he notes that the Hundred Years War would isolate Oxford and give the
advantage to Paris as a center of theological study.34 Perhaps those were factors. One
could point out the obvious fact that Bradwardine died in his prime, thus
snuffing out any possible influence he might have had as Archbishop of
Canterbury.
However, the material reason why
Bradwardine’s efforts effected no change must be traced to the doctrine he
propounded. Recall the state of the church in the fourteenth century. The
church was corrupt in doctrine and practice. The sacerdotal system and the
hierarchy were stifling. The doctrinal support for both was the Semi-Pelagian
doctrine of merit. In turn, the doctrine of merit was based on the free will of
men and the notion that man has a necessary part in his salvation. These
doctrines were well established in the church, and are doctrines always
pleasing to man. Man wants to be able to point to something he has contributed
to his salvation. Bradwardine’s teaching demolished all bases for man to boast.
For that reason, the theology of Bradwardine would never be accepted. William
Cunningham notes that Bradwardine
deplores bitterly the general prevalence of Pelagian error over the church, and earnestly appeals to the pope to interpose to check it, addressing him in these words: “Rise, Peter, why art thou sleeping?” But Peter did not find it convenient to hear him, and continued to sleep; and, in consequence, the Pelagian heresy, in its grossest and most injurious forms, prevailed generally over the whole church in the beginning of the sixteenth century.35
Even so, it is worth exploring the
possibility that God used Bradwardine in a different way, namely, to assist
others later in history when God determined to reform His church. The first
instance of such possible influence is on John Wyclif. Wyclif (c.1329-1384)
was a theologian and scholar of Oxford, in Merton College, as Bradwardine had
been. Many church historians point to the influence of Bradwardine on this
later pre-reformer. Toplady is representative, writing that Bradwardine “was in
some sense, Dr. Wicliff’s spiritual father: for it was the perusal of
Bradwardine’s writing, which next to the Holy Scriptures, opened the
proto-reformer’s eyes to discover the genuine doctrine of faith and
justification.”36
Oberman is more cautious. While noting
that Wyclif himself reveals that he had a high regard for Bradwardine when he
refers to Bradwardine as one of “two pre-eminent doctors of our order,”37 Oberman warns that the question of “influence” is a
most difficult one, well nigh impossible to substantiate unless the individual
personally describes the influence in his writings. Thus, while almost all
agree that Wyclif was influenced by Bradwardine, opinions differ as to the
extent and nature.
One major problem in identifying possible
influence of one man on a later is the fact that a theologian’s writings are
greatly affected by the issues of the day. Oberman notes what while Wyclif was
only one generation younger than Bradwardine, “in that very period new problems
were raised and new developments took place, which were of such great
significance for the history of Christian thought, that in reality the distance
between Bradwardine and Wiclif is considerably greater than that between Wiclif
and the Reformation.”38 The
issues of Wyclif’s day involved the doctrines of the church, Scripture, and the
Lord’s Supper, of which little or nothing is found in Bradwardine’s The
Cause of God.
While that is admittedly true, it is also
a fact that Wyclif’s doctrine of the church was greatly determined by the
doctrine of predestination, which in turn led him to differ with the
hierarchical view of the church maintained by medieval theologians. This is a
crucial point, because Wyclif, and later Hus, would define the church in terms
of the elect members rather than the magisterium – the clergy. The doctrine of
sovereign predestination is the foundation of that position. In addition,
Wyclif shared the profound reverence for the Scriptures possessed by
Bradwardine. No doubt also, Wyclif’s high regard for Augustine was fostered by
Bradwardine. All this would lead one to conclude that God did use Bradwardine
to teach Wyclif.
Oberman’s skepticism on the question of
Bradwardine’s influence on the Reformation is justified. Still, he notes the
similarities in that, for example, Bradwardine, Wyclif, and Luther all
maintained the sovereignty of God. They held to the view that all things that
happen, happen of necessity. They all emphasized predestination. And he adds
adroitly, “insofar as Bradwardine’s theology meant a return to a Boston, he
undoubtedly took part, together with Wiclif, in defining the climate of thought
at the end of the Middle Ages and in this more general way prepared for the
reformation.”39
There remains one additional, fascinating
aspect of Bradwardine’s possible influence to discuss, and that is his
influence in connection with the battles against Arminianism in sixteenth and
seventeenth century England, and thus indirectly on the Synod of Dordrecht
(1618-19).
That Bradwardine had a following in late
sixteenth and early seventeenth century England is evident from the fact that
his monumental work was republished at that time. In fact, Bradwardine had
supporters in some very high places. The printing of Bradwardine’s The Cause
of God was made possible by George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury
(1562–1633). Abbot was “deeply committed to the propagation of his understanding
of the predestinarian views of Augustine, Bradwardine, and Calvin. He rightly
feared that that position was losing acceptance among some of the members of
the more learned classes.”40
In those days, the relationship between
the Dutch and the English was close. Abbot was well aware of the rise of the
Arminian threat in the Netherlands and had early set out to undercut it. In
1611, he persuaded King James to oppose the appointment of the “undogmatic and
tolerant Conradus Vorstius [to]… the professorship at Leiden as the successor
to the recently deceased Arminius.”41 His efforts were successful.
Abbot had been appointed to help with the
translation of the KJV (1604-1611). He was on the subcommittee to translate the
Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Sir Henry Savile was a fellow member on this
subcommittee, and a skilled mathematician who had already done some printing.
Abbot urged Savile to prepare a critical edition of Bradwardine’s works. The volume
was ready for publication in 1618 (even dedicated to King James), in time to be
of assistance for the work at the Synod of Dordt. In addition, Abbot sent his
chaplain to represent him in the Netherlands.
Bradwardine was well known to the
Calvinists and the English opponents of Calvinism. At least one such opponent
called Bradwardine an “enemy of God.”42
Sad to say, Archbishop Abbot lost the
battle against Arminianism in England. The tide was clearly against the
doctrines of sovereign grace. By 1622, Abbot, disturbed about the debates and
discussions taking place, joined with King James in a terse publication
intended to quell the so-called Arminian controversy. It reads as follows:
That no preacher of what title soever, under the degree of a Bishop or Deane at the least, do from henceforth presume to preach in any populous auditorie, the deepe point of predestination, election, reprobation; of the universalitie, efficacie, resistabilities, or irresistabilitie of God’s grace, but leave those theames to be handled by the learned men, and that moderately, and modestly, by way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doctrine, as beeing itter of the schooles and universities, than for simple auditories.43
Though
Archbishop Abbot held to the fight until his death in 1633, it was clearly a
losing battle.
Still, at least one English church
historian believes that Bradwardine’s theology “is substantially expressed in
Articles 12, 13, and 17 of the Reformed Church of England.”44 Toplady uses Bradwardine extensively in his long
defense of the proposition that the Church of England historically stood in the
line of the Calvinistic reformation.
What possible influence Bradwardine’s
900-page work may have had on the formulations of the Synod of Dordrecht cannot
be known. However, the case of Abraham van der Heyden makes it obvious that
there was influence on some Reformed men in the Netherlands.
Abraham van der Heyden was a preacher in
the Netherlands who took up the defense of the doctrines of grace after the
Synod of Dordt by criticizing the catechism of the Remonstrants (published
1640) constructed by Johannes Uytenbogaerd. Van der Heyden was answered by
Simon Episcopius, a former professor of van der Heyden at the University of
Leiden. Van der Heyden then replied in greater length. He consciously relied on
Bradwardine in his works. Both Uytenbogaerd and Episcopius ridiculed van der
Heyden’s use of Bradwardine, a “popish bishop of Canterbury who lived 250 years
ago.” Such scorn did not result in van der Heyden’s distancing himself from
Bradwardine in the defense of the doctrines of Dordt. On the contrary, van der
Heyden unashamedly titled his second work, De causa Dei.
It is plain that Bradwardine’s The
Cause of God enabled van der Heyden to trace the line of the truth back to
Augustine. “With the exception of references to Episcopius, whose work van der
Heyden was specifically answering, references to Augustine outnumber even those
to Calvin, the next most frequently cited authority, by four or five times.”45
Any serious evaluation of Bradwardine’s
significance affirms that predestination is a central element in his theology,
if not the cornerstone. Not since Gottschalk of the ninth century, and
Augustine before him, had any theologian maintained this “hard doctrine” so
faithfully or emphatically. Gottschalk died a martyr for the sake of this
truth; Bradwardine did not. Several factors (in God’s providence) account for
Bradwardine’s escape from condemnation. The first is the papal schism that
greatly weakened the power of the papacy in Bradwardine’s day. The second
factor is that Bradwardine was in England, where the power of the Romish church
was often mitigated by English nationalism. In addition, Bradwardine was held
in high regard among the universities in Europe and in the churches in England.
That King Edward would choose Bradwardine to be his personal chaplain and
secretary demonstrates Bradwardine’s high standing.
These seemingly ineffectual stands for the
truth of sovereign grace by Gottschalk and Bradwardine lead one to ponder the
purposes of God. Not that anyone may sinfully question God’s wisdom or ways in
all his dealings with men. Yet there is a legitimate investigation into God’s
purposes, insofar as they can be determined by the study of history. It is
obvious that God had similar purposes in Gottschalk and in Bradwardine. Both
men were but briefly lit candles for the truth that Augustine developed. Both
men had opposition, and ultimately the message of both was squelched.
From a negative point of view, God
revealed clearly that the church after Augustine did not want the truth of
sovereign, double predestination. With Gottschalk, it was declared with a
vengeance. If anyone thought that the martyrdom of Gottschalk was not
conclusive, that perhaps the schoolmen returned to the essence of Augustine,
the rejection of Bradwardine by the universities and churchmen indicates
otherwise. There was no room for that truth in the context of
works-righteousness firmly maintained by the church of that day.
From a positive point of view, as has been
noted, God was preparing the way for the reformation of His church. And yet
only a part of the way. In many respects the reformers would have to go much
farther than Bradwardine.
Nonetheless,
God upholds His truth. It is a comfort to the Reformed man and the church today
to know that God maintained the truth also of sovereign predestination even in
the darkest times of the high Middle Ages. The lesson of Bradwardine is clear.
It should not surprise anyone in the twenty-first century that the church world
at large spurns the doctrine of sovereign predestination. Unbelief hates that
truth especially, because predestination maintains that God is sovereign. Thus
the church must take comfort in the historical reminder that God will maintain
His truth to the end.
The
Serious Call of the Gospel —
Is
the Well-Meant Offer One?
(Part 1)
Lau Chin Kwee
Introduction
In the midst of rampant Arminian offers of
and invitations to salvation, the Reformed community would do well to
reconsider the usefulness and legitimacy of “The Well-meant Offer of Salvation”
as a serious call of the gospel.
Where should we turn for a united Reformed
front on this matter? In the history of
dogma, we learn that the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) was the last ecumenical
assembly where delegates were drawn from all over the then known Reformed
world. If ever there was a united,
official, and carefully formulated Reformed refutation of the Arminian errors,
it must be the Canons, the product of this synod for that very purpose. But the Canons are much neglected these
days, even by those who purportedly promote the Five Points of Calvinism (the
popular name for the Canons). One
wonders if it is not due to the shying away from the Canons, that Reformed
people are drifting apart from one another in the matter of Reformed
soteriology. The Canons shall not be
neglected in our attempt to determine what is truly the serious call of the
gospel and whether the well-meant offer may be classified as one.
In this paper we are not particularly
concerned about the legitimacy and possibility of the work of evangelism in the
light of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Dr. R. C. Sproul, in his book Chosen By God, saw the
implication of the doctrine of predestination on the task of evangelism. He asked, What does predestination do to the
task of evangelism? His answer
essentially is that it does not affect evangelism at all, as evangelism is a
matter of the church obeying the command of Christ, her Head, and considering
it a privilege on her part to be involved.1 We agree with
him and here in this paper we would ask how the doctrine of grace affects the
form of gospel presentation to the lost.
That there are serious errors in
presenting the gospel as a “well-meant offer” can be discerned in the following
words of the late Dr. John H. Gerstner:
I had the incomparable privilege of being a student of Professors Murray and Stonehouse. With tears in my heart, I nevertheless confidently assert that they erred profoundly in The Free Offer of the Gospel and died before they seem to have realized their error which, because of their justifiedly high reputations for Reformed excellence generally, still does incalculable damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of His gospel.2
Chapter I
What Is the Call of the Gospel?
Before His ascension, Christ commanded His
church to bring the gospel to the ends of the earth and make disciples of all
nations. None should doubt the
importance of the accuracy of the message which we must bring and of the
knowledge of its effect in this world.
Heppe tells us of the three important ingredients of the gospel:
This word is of three kinds: (1) witness or proclamation, that God in Christ has given the world new salvation and life; (2) the command that those who hear this proclamation believe it with remorseful and penitent hearts; and (3) the promise that those who believe this proclamation with upright hearts really attain to the salvation prepared in Christ.3
A. What is the gospel?
1. It is the good news of salvation through the Savior Jesus Christ,
the Son of the Living God.
The bad news of the Fall.
The Fall of man into sin in the Garden of
Eden is bad news for mankind, notwithstanding the fact that God did turn that
evil around even for the good of His people. Before the Fall, God saw that everything that He had created was “very good”
(Gen 1:31).
Every change was good news, but not the good
news of salvation, as there was no Fall as yet to make salvation
necessary. So the gospel presupposes
the Fall — the “bad news” in the history of mankind.
It was good that man was created “in our
image, after our likeness” according to God’s own Word. Without the understanding of this original
goodness in the human race, there would
be no proper understanding of the Fall of man.
The concept of the Fall implies a standing position from which the Fall
took place. This standing position is
obviously the original rectitude of man.
Without this original righteousness, holiness, and true knowledge of
man, there would be no Fall to talk about.
The story of the Fall in
Genesis 3
is the
Bible’s bad news of what happened to our first parents. The Belgic Confession confesses,
But being in honor he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life which he had received he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death.4
It
is obvious that the bad news is very bad.
Death has come upon this creation, with man in the forefront to
experience both corporal and spiritual death.
Death is not a natural phenomenon, but the judgment and curse of God
upon man and this creation because of the Fall. Man by nature does not like this truth about himself, as it is
truly humbling to his sinful pride. By
all means he would rather think of himself otherwise than in terms of the
Fall. Yet, he must explain the obvious
imperfection of man. Hence, he came up
with the theory of evolution.
All theories of evolution are the devil’s
wiles to rob man of any idea of the Fall in man. In evolution, the lower forms of life evolve to more complex and
better forms of life, culminating in the nature of man. Therefore, any weaknesses and failures (and
sinfulness) in man is attributed to parts of the evolutionary process. There is, therefore, no Fall at all, but
only the process of evolution to a better being. This is the lie of the devil.
Without the bad news of the Fall there is
not good news of redemption.
The good news of redemption.
Redemption speaks of a price paid to bring
man back to fellowship with God again.
That indeed is good news to man, for there is nothing more glorious to
him than to be in communion with His God, in whose image he was first created.
But …
They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.5
Good
news can never arise from man himself.
Adam and Eve tried to bring good news with their “fig leaves” to cover
up the shame of their sins. Later their
firstborn, Cain tried with his fruits and other produce of the ground, but to
no avail. All our righteousnesses are
as filthy rags. God alone can bring the
good news to man, as He alone can create that good news. The protevangel (“mother-promise”) is found
here:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.6
These
were words of curse upon the devil pronounced by God in the presence of our
fallen parents. As such it was also a
promise to them that God will fight for them the fierce battle against the
devil and defeat him. This victory (according
to this prophecy) will come through the “seed” of the woman, who should bruise
the head of the devil and destroy him.
In the course of the battle, the heel of the woman’s seed would be
bruised. This is the prophecy
concerning of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
From the protevangel to the first advent
of Christ, there were many more prophecies through the types and shadows of the
Old Testament, giving greater details concerning the coming of the
Messiah. All these were and still are
good news of His work of redemption.
They are the gospel, still relevant today when carefully and faithfully
preached.
Now in the New Testament era, we know that
this promised Messiah is none other than the Second Person of the Godhead, who
became flesh and dwelt among men in order to save a people whom His Father had
given Him to represent legally and spiritually. For them He had paid the penalty of all their sins on the cross
of Calvary and fulfilled all righteousness according to the Law of God. His resurrection from the dead was because
of their justification. So the good news of Jesus Christ is that He did it all
to save a people that is represented by the church today.
The good news of conversion.
The good news (or gospel) goes beyond
announcing what God the Father had planned to do, and God the Son had executed
in His work of redemption, into what God the Holy Spirit is presently doing in
applying this salvation to mankind.
The good news is that out of all the sons
and daughters of Adam, dead and totally helpless in trespasses and sins, God
the Holy Spirit would raise to spiritual life a people whom God had chosen in
His love to save and for whom Christ had died and rose again. All that is necessary for their salvation is
found in the redemptive work of Christ.
The Holy Spirit applies these benefits to the chosen of God in time, so
that they come to the conscious knowledge of their salvation, and thus live the
remaining days of their lives in joy and thankfulness under the lordship of
Christ. The good news is incomplete
without this promise of the Holy Spirit’s work. The Westminster Larger Catechism is clear on this:
Q 59: Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
A 59: Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.
Notice
that the enabling work of the Holy Ghost is something “according to the
gospel,” and that it is very particular in its effectual communication of
redemption. The first sign of life as
the Holy Spirit regenerates is conversion. It is good news that God should
promise conversion among the children of man.