Showing posts with label Romans 5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romans 5. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

A. Hunnius on the truly confessional Lutheran teaching of Romans 5:18

(Here is an excerpt from a post on www.faithalonejustifies.com)


ClearExplanationAegidius Hunnius has a brilliant section in A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians concerning Samuel Huber’s misuse of Romans 5 to prove that all those who have been condemned through Adam’s sin have also been justified by Christ’s obedience (whether they believe in Him or not).

Hunnius takes apart Huber’s (and the official WELS) doctrine piece by piece, concluding with this observation about Huber’s supposed “confessional subscription” to the Lutheran Book of Concord:

And what will Dr. Huber reply to the Book of Concord, which, in citing these very words from Romans, explicitly confirms that those things mean nothing other than that we are justified by faith? This is what the Book of Concord says in the Latin edition, page 666: “Therefore, these statements are equivalent and clearly mean the same thing, when Paul says that we are justified by faith; or that faith is imputed to us for righteousness; and when he teaches that we are justified by the obedience of one Mediator, who is Christ; or that through the righteousness of one man, justification of life comes upon all men. For faith does not justify on account of this, that it is such a good work, or that it is such a splendid virtue, but because it apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Thus far the Book of Concord.  If the Pauline phrase (that “through the righteousness of one Man, justification of life comes upon all men”) clearly means the same thing as that other statement, “We are justified by faith” (as the Book of Concord clearly and emphatically asserts), then the interpretation is rejected by the sentence of the Book of Concord that imagines from these words of Paul a justification apart from faith—one that extends also to those who have never had faith and never will. Dr. Luther says it even better in [his lectures on] the second chapter to the Galatians: “Where Christ and faith are not present, there is no remission of sins, no refuge, nothing but pure imputation of sins and condemnation.”


Saturday, February 16, 2013

Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question

It becomes increasingly difficult to discuss Biblical doctrine when people are constantly trying to paint others into a corner with the sort of “trap question” that the scribes and Pharisees so often used with Jesus. 

A good example of such a question was submitted this morning on another thread by Pastor Peter Prange.

Dear Paul:

Would you say that Christ's vicarious satisfaction is *sufficient* for all the world but not *efficient* apart from faith?

Just trying to get further clarification.

Cordially,

Peter

One of the marks of a “trap question” is the very “cordial” tone of the question.  It appears innocent.  “Just trying to get further clarification.”  “Help me understand this better.”  It sounds like the author of the question is trying to engage in honest discussion.  Who could have a problem with that?

This cordial tone is intended to disarm the person being questioned.  The respondent wants to assume that the one asking the question is being charitable and honest, and so he wishes to respond with charity as well, putting the best construction on the question.  It also allows the questioner to feign innocence (and shock) in the end if he is caught in his Pharisaical behavior:  “What?  I was just asking an innocent question.  You didn’t put the best construction on it.  That’s your fault.  I will pray for you.”  How pious!

But there are certain words and phrases that are loaded with meaning in theological discussion.  And just as in a chess match when a player attempts to out-maneuver his opponent by hiding his strategy, so a theological “player” will couch his language in innocence while introducing these loaded words, hoping that his opponent isn’t paying attention.  Sometimes he may notice the trap and avoid it.  Other times, he may not see it coming, and then, “Checkmate.”

I invite out readers to research the source of Pastor Prange’s language.  It isn’t the Book of Concord.  It isn’t the language of Lutheran orthodoxy or of Scripture.  It is straight out of the textbook of Calvinism.

I’ll quote here an example, but if one googles “atonement sufficient efficient,” one comes up with about half a million results.


Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05).  He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers.  From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.

The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent.  It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent.  According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”  W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.” 

This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross.  As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value.  The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited.  Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.


Pastor Prange is a learned, intelligent man.  The words he chose in his question were not random, nor were they innocent.  If he wanted to ask me if I held to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement,” he could have simply asked.  If he had been intending to have an honest discussion, he would have been open about the source of his language.

Instead, he used the insidious “trap question.”  Unfortunately, this is rather typical in discussions I’ve had concerning UOJ.  Perhaps I have been guilty of it on the other end at times, and if so, I apologize.  The “trap question” is normally an uncharitable form of dialogue.  I say normally, not always, because at times Jesus Himself responded to trap questions with trap questions of His own, (“I will answer your question if you answer mine. John’s baptism—where did it come from?”).  Obviously in these cases, our Lord was perfectly justified in turning the trap back on the heads of those who were wickedly persecuting Him.

As for this “trap question” about “sufficient but not efficient” atonement, I will simply answer as I always have, that I reject the Calvinist limited atonement, as well as the Calvinist absolute double decree of election both to salvation and to damnation, together with all the theological baggage that goes along with these Calvinist heresies.  And in my discussions, I will not be baited into departing from the language of Scripture and the Book of Concord, and I urge our readers both to watch out for these trap questions, and not to employ them as a general rule.

But this incessant attempt of UOJers to pin the charge of Calvinism on those who hold to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone is nothing new.  Samuel Huber, with his version of universal justification, did the same thing to the orthodox theologians at Wittenberg, because to him, either one has to teach universal election and universal justification, or one must be a Calvinist teaching a limited atonement.  Hunnius, of course, demonstrates Huber's folly.

From the Preface to A. Hunnius’ Theses Opposed to Huberianism:

In this book, he not only miserably and ineptly hijacks and most violently twists the apostolic text with his dreams and deliria, but he also, in unbridled fashion, seeks, beyond all rhyme and reason, to rub the scab of Calvinism off of me, most wantonly inventing that which he knows full well to be made up by him in his own study.  What does one expect from such propensity for fabrication, by which, perhaps, he tries to outdo his own father by whom he writes and speaks?

…I have also recommended these Theses so that it may be clearly seen how barefaced Huber is, how prodigiously vain, how contrary to his conscience is his testimony to impugn us as heretics guilty of a Calvinistic crime, that this man who has been handed over to a reprobate mind has no fear whatsoever, neither before God nor before the Church. 


Thursday, November 8, 2012

Johann Gerhard on Romans 5:19


Previously I had posted a translation of Johann Gerhard on Romans 3, Romans 4, and Romans 5:18.  Here's a translation of his interpretation of Romans 5:19.


(Translation copyright 2012 by Paul A. Rydecki.  All emphasis is in the original.)



Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos (1644)

Romans 5:19
σπερ γρ δι τς παρακος το νς νθρώπου μαρτωλο κατεστάθησαν ο πολλοί, οτω κα δι τς πακος το νς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται ο πολλοί.
[The Apostle] demonstrates the basis for the preceding comparison, which consists in this, that these two men (Adam and Christ) have been established as two stocks from which righteousness and life are propagated to others. For Adam was established at the beginning of creation as the stock from which righteousness and life should be propagated to all his posterity.  But since he turned away from God through sin, from that time on unrighteousness and death are propagated from him to all his posterity. Therefore, God out of grace took pity on the human race and opened up another source of righteousness and life for us.  He sent Christ the Mediator, from whom as a stock and a tree of life, righteousness and life should be communicated to all who are grafted into Him by faith.
What he had earlier called transgression (παράπτωμα) he now calls disobedience (παρακοήν), because the origin and source of transgression was disobedience. And what he had earlier called righteousness (δικαίωμα), he now calls obedience (πακοήν), because Christ, by obeying His heavenly Father to death, even death on a cross, acquired that righteousness for us (Phil. 2:9).  Then in turn, what he had said earlier—by one transgression condemnation (κατάκριμα) came upon all—that he brings out in this verse saying that many were made sinners, because that propagation of sin and contraction of guilt is the cause of condemnation. And what he had said earlier—through one Man’s righteousness the benefit overflowed to all for justification (δικαίωσιν)—that he brings out here saying that through one Man’s obedience many were made righteous. But he uses a future tense verb on account of those who will believe (τος μέλλοντας πιστεύειν).
Godly men of old speak in this way concerning this contrast of Adam and Christ.  Irenaeus (Book 5, ch. 18, p.342): Just as through one conquered man our race descended into death, so again through one conquering man we have ascended to life.  And just as death won the prize against us through a man, so again we have won the prize against death through a man.  Augustine writes in Letter 57 ad Dardan. q. 2: In the one case it became clear how the choice of a man should prevail for death; in the other case, how the help of God should prevail for life. He says the same thing in Book 2 On Original Sin, ch. 24: The Christian faith properly consists in the case of these two men.  Through one of them we were sold under sin; through the other we are redeemed from sin.  One of these men caused us to perish in himself by doing his own will rather than the will of Him by whom he was made; the other Man saved us in Himself by not doing His own will, but the will of Him by whom He was sent. Lyranus in h.1: Just as through the disobedience of Adam his posterity were made unrighteous, so through the obedience of Christ many are justified in the wood of the outstretched cross.
The Papists try to wrest out of h.1 that we are justified through an infused and inherent righteousness.
Pererius in h.1 says: Paul did not say that they were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, nor should one imagine that they were made so through imputed disobedience.  Rather, he said “through disobedience,” that is, disobedience that came through the sin that dwells intrinsically in them due to Adam’s disobedience. Similarly, therefore, it is not that the obedience of Christ makes them righteous, as if men became righteous not through an inherent righteousness but through an imputed righteousness.  Rather, they are made righteous through the obedience of Christ, because this was the meritorious cause.
We reply:  This presupposes that that phrase righteousness makes righteous and unrighteousness makes unrighteous, is only meant formally; but that the other phrase, through righteousness they are made righteous and through unrighteousness they are made unrighteous is only meant with regard to merit[1].  And yet Pererius himself is forced to deny this hypothesis when that which is through faith δι πίστεως), Rom. 3:22,30, is interpreted formally.  Thus in 2 Tim. 3:15, faith is not the cause because of which a person merits becoming wise for salvation, but is rather itself the form of that wisdom. Thus when in Gal. 5:6 faith is said to work through love, love cannot be understood as the meritorious cause why faith works. Bellarmine himself in Book 2 On Justification, ch. 3, says: We are justified through his grace, i.e., through the righteousness given and infused by him, and this is the formal cause.
Bellarmine, in Book 2 On Justification, ch. 3:  Through the unrighteousness of Adam we were made unrighteous by an unrighteousness that truly and really inheres in us, not by imputation.  Therefore, in the same way we are made righteous through the obedience of Christ, by a righteousness that inheres in us.  Becanus, in Part 1 On Justification, ch. 2 section 14: Just as we were made unrighteous through the disobedience of Adam, so through the obedience of Christ we are made righteous. Yet we are made unrighteous through Adam’s disobedience, not formally, but only efficiently and meritoriously. Therefore we are also made righteous through the obedience of Christ, not formally, but only efficiently and meritoriously.
We reply:
1) The comparison between the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ is not instituted simply[2] and absolutely, but according to something in particular[3]. For the Apostle is considering at that time the causes of our salvation and condemnation, for just as the condemnation draws its origin from Adam’s disobedience, so our salvation draws its origin from Christ’s obedience. Then, the Apostle considers the propagation and effects of Christ’s obedience and of Adam’ disobedience, for just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so through the obedience of Christ they are made righteous. 
2) But by no means is this comparison to be extended to the mode of propagation and communication, which the Apostle is obviously not treating in this passage; but he dealt with that in the preceding passages, teaching that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by faith, but that Adam’s sin is propagated to us by carnal generation.
3) If we wanted to go beyond the limits of the Apostolic comparison, someone could infer from the same that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to us through carnal generation, since the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to us in that manner.  Likewise, one could infer that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to all men together, without any regard for faith or unbelief, since the sin of Adam is propagated to all through carnal generation. 
4) But since that is absurd, a distinction must fully be made between the acquisition and the application of the merit of Christ; or between the benefit itself and participation in the benefit.  The acquisition of the merit, or the benefit itself obtained by the death of Christ is general.  For as Adam, by his disobedience, enveloped all of his posterity in the guilt of sin, so Christ, who suffered and died for the sins of all, also merited and acquired righteousness for all.  But this benefit is only applied to those who are grafted into Christ by faith, and only they become participants in this benefit. 
5) The contrast is evident in this Apostolic text between justification and condemnation, v. 16 and v.18. But since they are contrasted under the same genre, and condemnation is, to be sure, a judicial act, from that it follows that justification is also a judicial act, and hence it consists, not in the infusion of righteousness, but in the absolution from sins. Undoubtedly, as through the sin of Adam sin is propagated to all men, for it results in condemnation for them, that is, because of it they are damned by the righteous judgment of God unless reconciliation and remission take place, so through the merit of Christ righteousness and salvation have been obtained for all, so that they may be justified by faith, that is, that they may be pronounced righteous, absolved from sins and freed from condemnation. 
6) To be made righteous and to be justified are considered by the Apostle to be equivalent expressions (σοδυναμοσι).  Therefore, to be made righteous is contrasted with for condemnation in v.19; so also to be justified in v.18; and hence each has a forensic meaning. The verb they will be made (κατασταθήσονται) indicates that these things are carried out before the tribunal of God’s righteous judgment, who condemns Adam’s posterity on account of sin, but absolves believers in Christ from that damnation and makes them righteous (Rom. 10:3, 2 Cor. 5:21). 
7) By no semblance of truth can it be denied that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity.  For although the corruption of nature that arises from Adam’s sin inheres in his posterity, nevertheless it cannot be denied that Adam’s sin, from which the corruption of nature arises, is imputed to them (Ex. 20:5, Rom. 5:13).  For as soon as our first parents sinned, in whose loins was the entire human race, and who received gifts not only for themselves, but also for their posterity, their transgression was considered the transgression of the entire human race, and hence was imputed to all of them so that they are damned before they are born. Therefore, Bellarmine himself in Book 4 On the Loss of Grace, ch. 10, writes: The sin of Adam is imputed to all his posterity in such a way as if all had committed the same sin. And he cites the statement of Bernhard: Adam’s guilt is ours, for although it was in another, we still sinned; and it was imputed to us by God’s righteous judgment, although secretly.
Stapleton in Antidoto h.l. presses the verb they will be made (κατασταθήσονται).  This vocable, he says, is most suitable for explaining inherent righteousness, for the use of Scripture teaches that it does not mean imputation, but the true and inherent acquisition and possession (Luke 12). Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 place him over all things.  You placed him over all the works of your hands.  James 2, He is made an enemy of God.
We reply:
1) Some declare that the verb to be made applies to the status of the believers in the future age in which they will be made righteous by inherent righteousness—and that a most perfect righteousness. Certainly the benefits of Christ do not end with this life, but are extended also into the future life.  Therefore, in this way this phrase would designate the effect of justification.  This is what they make of the words of the Apostle, those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life. For distinct times are noted: they receive the abundance of the gift, already in place in this life; yet they do not reign in life, but will reign, that is, someday and in the future age.
2) In justification, believers are truly made righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ, no more truly than a servant who is at some time placed by his lord over all his goods, or a man who is placed by God over all the works of His hands.  But it does not follow, if someone wishes to infer from this truth an inherence of righteousness.  Nor in the examples cited is inherence necessarily established.  A man is made lord of the creatures not through inherence, but through relationship; a man is made a friend of God, not by some affection inhering in the man himself, since God loved those who did not exist.


[1] meritorie
[2] simpliciter
[3] secundum quid

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Johann Gerhard on Romans 5:18



Yesterday I posted a translation of Johann Gerhard on Romans 3 and on Romans 4.  Here's a translation of his interpretation of Romans 5:18.


(Translation copyright 2012 by Paul A. Rydecki.  All emphasis is in the original.)


Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos (1644)
Romans 5:18 (page 177)
Ἄρα οὖν ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτω καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·

This verse is a summary of everything that came before.  That I may briefly summarize, he says, what I have said thus far concerning the comparison between Adam and Christ, the matter boils down to this: Just as the guilt that was contracted from one transgression of Adam sentences all men to death, so the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believers by faith justifies them, so that they are restored again to participate in the eternal life that had been lost in Adam and through Adam.

ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα. Just as through one offense (scil. guilt came) upon all men for condemnation. The Syrian version translated it: Just as through sin condemnation was to all the children of men.  The Apostle contrasts the transgression (τ παράπτωμα) of Adam and the righteousness (τ δικαίωμα) of Christ.  Likewise, [he contrasts] the condemnation (κατάκριμα) that spread to all from Adam’s transgression and the justification of life (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) that deduces its origin from the righteousness of Christ (ex Christi δικαιώματι)  and flows down to all.

οὕτω καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. So through one Man’s righteousness (scil. the benefit overflowed) to all men for justification of life, that is, salvific justification.  For it is called “justification of life” because the end and consequence of it is life and eternal salvation.

[You ask,] But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified?  We reply: The Apostle is not speaking about the application of the benefit, but of the acquisition of the benefit.  If we wish to descend to the application, that universality must be restricted to those who are grafted into Christ by faith. For as the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to all those who are descended from him by carnal generation, so the righteousness of Christ is communicated to all those who are grafted into Him through faith and spiritual regeneration.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License