Reformation Soteriology—Original Elements

Introduction to Reformation Soteriology: Original Elements

0:00 Uh, what page are we on? Uh, uh, uh, 233.

0:08 Do you think it's 233? Has everybody agreed? Alright, good. What's that? Yeah.

0:17 Some of this was written out, well, I'll let you in on a little secret. Some of this was written out, uh, like 30 years ago. And, and, and actually I came to stuff that had never been input into a computer. So, dear John DeVito back there found a way to, uh, to, uh, scan it into a computer.

0:38 And that helped a whole lot, but I'll tell you what, a lot of garbage shows up, and there's a lot of stuff he had to still help me with to make it look halfway decent. Okay, let's pray. Father, we thank you that the gospel is that your power is made perfect in our weakness. Your righteousness is disparaging.

1:01 Your wisdom comes to us in the midst of our ungodliness. Your wisdom comes to us in the midst of our folly. And all of this as displayed in the one who was your foolishness, but divine wisdom. Your weakness, but divine strength.

1:18 And we thank you that he was your righteousness, though, uh, he was condemned as a sinner. And so we thank you for this grace. And it gives us hope that we can draw you in. We come near to you with the expectation of the help of your spirit, which we confess our need of in Jesus' name.

1:39 Amen. All right, we come then to section three of part three of the course, the soteriology of the Reformation, original elements. And then you'll see if you look at the syllabus you've got, so the soteriology of the Reformation, later developments.

The Centrality and Strands of Reformation Soteriology

2:01 And, um, there's a reason for that. Something by way of introduction may explain this. When we come to take up the soteriology of the Reformation, we come to the heart of its theology. Orr notices this when in his book, The Progress of Dogma, he makes the characteristic area of progress of the era of the Reformation that of the application of redemption.

2:23 Orr is also right, I think, in saying that it is not the isolated doctrine of justification which receives its definitive treatment in the Reformation. That's true. But it is not just justification, but that doctrine in the midst of a whole collection of doctrines having to do with the application of salvation. Yet even his terminology is, from one perspective, too constricted.

2:48 It is the entirety of the theology of redemption, which receives its classic construction in the Reformation. It brings to their culmination doctrines of sin and grace, doctrines, pardon me, the discussion of which. Which dominated the medieval period. The Augustinian doctrines of sin and grace are released from their stultifying or frustrating alliance with Romish sacramentalism.

3:16 The Anselmic doctrine of the atonement is refined and brought to a fully biblical statement. The soteriology of the Reformation has, therefore, several foci. This creates some difficulty in the format of its treatment. There is the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace.

3:32 There is the Anselmic doctrine of sin and grace. There is the Augustinian doctrine of the atonement. And the Lutheran doctrine of justification. But all these merge to form the soteriology of the Reformation.

3:43 Different strands forming one tightly woven fabric, as we're going to see next week. And when one of these strands is released, it tends to undo the whole. At least early Arminianism tended to run into difficulty again and again and again with the release of the Soteriology of the Reformation. After denying the doctrine of irresistible grace.

4:11 This is the difficulty of treating the soteriology of the Reformation. The note on which this introduction began, the centrality of soteriology to the theology of the Reformation, is underscored by the interesting fact that the three strands of its doctrinal development are summarized above. There is the Augustinian strand, grace alone. There is the Anselmic strand, Christ alone.

4:32 There is the Lutheran strand. There is the faith alone. The Augustinian element is fundamental. It provides the context and the platform for the whole.

4:43 But one can see from history that it required the precision of elaboration that it received from Anselm and Luther. In line with these considerations, the outline of the section will be as follows.

4:58 Roman numeral 1, grace alone. Roman numeral 2, Christ alone. Roman numeral 3, faith alone. So first of all, grace alone in the early Reformers.

Grace Alone: Augustinian Background and Reformed Refinement

5:10 It's Augustinian background. Scarcity requires explicit mention that what we are face-to-face with in the Reformation is simply a revival of Augustinianism. It is quite true that the Reformation, when looked at purely in itself, presents itself to our view as in the words of I'm not sure what the FR stands for, Mr. Lewis.

5:34 The Rediscovery of the Reformation. The Rediscovery of the Reformation. The Rediscovery of the Reformation. The Rediscovery of the Reformation.

5:35 The Rediscovery of Christianity as religion. And it is quite true that purely Augustinian as the Reformation is in its conception of religion, it is not the whole of Augustine that it takes over, but only the Augustine of sin and grace. So that when we speak of it as a revival of Augustinianism, we must have in mind only the Augustinianism of grace. But the Augustinianism of grace, in the truest sense, represents the real Augustine, as I have argued, already in this class.

6:08 No injustice is done, then, to historical verity and the essence of the matter when we speak of him as a post-Pauline and pre-Lutheran Luther. All of that is, I think, James Orr. It's B.B. Warfield.

6:29 Parker, the biographer of Kelvin, makes the same point with specific reference to the doctrine of predestination, which flows out of an Augustinian view of sin and grace. He cites J.B. Mosley to this effect.

6:40 And then comments, Mosley is right in general, and Kelvin supposed his doctrine to differ from Augustine's. Not at all.

6:49 The universal prevalence of this.

6:54 Grace alone in its present usage involves three distinct but inseparable doctrines. The complete slavery of the will by sin, the sole agency of God and salvation, and double predestination. On these matters, there was complete agreement. There was a monolithic view, then, among the early reformers.

7:11 Luther's, Winkler's, Kelvin, Butzer, Bullinger, Peter, Martyr, and even at first Melanchthon were unanimous on these matters. They were all strict Augustinians. That is to say, including the slavery of the will, the irresistibility of grace, and double predestination.

7:31 C. Its central importance. There can be no doubt of the central importance of these matters for Luther and Kelvin. One does not suppose that this will be a matter of dispute.

7:42 For most people, at least, in Kelvin's case, his views are too well known. But Luther's insistence is, for many perhaps, more instructive and surprising. Both in 1520 and his answer to the papal bull of excommunication, and in 1524 and his answer to Erasmus, he makes this abundantly clear. He was later, in 1537, to write that his treatise against Erasmus de libero arbitrio, his treatise de servo arbitrio, the bondage of the will, and also his catechism, these books were alone, quotes, right.

8:19 But there is a significant modification with regard to the Augustinianism, of at least the reformed part of Protestantism. It must be mentioned briefly that at one point there was a refinement of Augustine's doctrines of sin and grace. Augustine had taught baptismal regeneration, as we have seen. So.

8:43 Also, in some sense, that Gulch, Gottschalk, the upshot of this was that some who were not elected were yet, however, nevertheless, regenerated. As these lectures have made clear then, both Augustine and Gottschalk were forced to acknowledge that it was obvious enough that this was so since many of the baptized totally apostatized or lived lives inconsistent with the results of election. Augustine and Gottschalk, therefore, taught that truly regenerate people could fall, fall from grace, and be damned. The gift of perseverance was given only to the elect.

9:18 It is evident, as we have seen, that this state of affairs introduced much cloudiness into Augustine's presentation and despoiled his doctrine from much of its practical value. Calvinistic Augustinianism removed this cloudiness and restored the practical value, the cash value of the doctrine of election. This it did by affirming the perseverance of the saints. Grace in the life thus became the index of election and eternity.

9:48 One could, therefore, be certain of one's election on the basis of grace in one's life, and the practical value of this was both to comfort saints and to encourage would-be saints to seek Christ. All of this, of course, was the result of the denial of Romish sacramentalism, so that one of the key practical elements in which the Reformation differed from Roman Catholicism was in the effect. It was the affirmation of the possibility of assurance of salvation for the ordinary Christian. And this could be affirmed because of the prior affirmation of the perseverance of the saints.

10:23 You know, of course, that there can be no assurance of salvation worthy of that terminology where there is no affirmation of the perseverance of the saints. If the saints may not persevere, then all the grace in one's life that one may have is no sign that one is elect or that one will ultimately be saved. And assurance of salvation is not possible. But one of the great marks of Calvin's theology and great points of it, I think, as we are going to see, is that assurance of salvation is made possible because of the doctrine of grace alone, and especially the doctrine of grace alone freed from the fetters of Romans' sacramentalism.

Christ Alone: Anselm's Contribution to the Atonement

11:05 But that brings us, having seen the monolithic attachment to strict Augustinianism in the early Reformers, to Christ alone in the early Reformers. And here we have to go back and talk about Anselm somewhat.

11:23 Anselm's great work, Crudeus Homo, and you know the Latin means, Why the God-Man, has all the marks of epical advance in the progress of dogma. There is in the title and substance of the book, Organic Connection with Past Dogmatic Progress, the title, Why the God-Man, refers to the Chalcedonian doctrine of the person of Christ. The stupendous fact of the Incarnation had, by this time,

11:54 Anselm's dates are 1033 or 1034 to 1109, ceased to be a matter of controversy and had become the quiet conviction of the Church. Now men began to search for the rationale which necessitated such a tremendous occurrence as the Incarnation. This is the meaning of the title. The significance of the title of Anselm's work.

12:20 Now this brings us to a second mark of dogmatic progress in this work. Burkhoff notes that the opening portion of the work indicates that at the time of its writing, many minds were occupied with the question of the nature and necessity of the Atonement. In other words, the Church was now turning its attention to the whole subject of the Atonement. And could do that now because...

12:44 the doctrine of the Incarnation had been settled. And now the question had become why the Incarnation? Why the God-Man? So this doctrine was now becoming the object of the concentrated attention of the Church.

13:01 A third indication of dogmatic progress is also present. There is marked advance in the clarity of Anselm's treatment of the subject. Other theories are deliberately rejected. Seberg comments, The author really understands the subject, the subject under discussion and makes it intelligible to others.

13:19 In other words, there is a kind of a grasp of the subject that enables him to reject certain theories, begin to sort theories out, and to present his own theory with some clarity. This does not mean that we follow Anselm in the entirety of his theory. It only means that there is a sense of dogmatic...

13:39 the contours of this dogma are now becoming clear to Anselm. And he's able to...

13:45 begin to actually talk in reasonable ways about why certain theories should be rejected and why others accept it. And significant advances. Berkhoff comments, The Alpha and Omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the Atonement for the Redemption of Man. Now this is important.

14:05 This is the thing that is the most significant advance in Anselm's case. It is the necessity of the Atonement. It is the fact that the Atonement is necessary. That it isn't something that could have been done without by God.

14:20 It isn't something that could have been overridden by the sheer exercise of divine power. The Atonement was necessary. And this is the key principle for Anselm. It is the foundation of his forward advance.

14:34 He grounds the Atonement then in the character of God. Only the character of God could make the Atonement absolutely necessary. Because only God's own nature is absolutely necessary. So he grounds the Atonement in the character of God as it confronts the heinous sinfulness of men.

14:56 The specific character of the Atonement is that Christ makes satisfaction to God's honor. And thus he pays the debt to God, that is to say God's honor, which men have concurred by their sin. This satisfaction Christ makes by the gift of his death to God. So Seberg shows that the nature of sin for Anselm is the withholding of the honor one owes to God.

15:31 And also shows that for Anselm there is the necessity of God's honor being upheld by the Atonement if man is to be saved. From all of this it becomes clear that the Atonement is necessary. From all of this it becomes clear that the Atonement is necessary. From all of this it becomes clear that the Atonement is necessary.

15:48 From all of this it becomes clear that the Atonement is necessary. From all of this it becomes clear that the Atonement is necessary. And then all of this becomes clear that the significant contribution of Anselm is his understanding of the centrality of propitiation in the Atonement. And the necessity of the Atonement for men to be saved.

16:00 This view was a practical and pastoral matter for Anselm and played a part in, for instance, Anselm's somewhat famous directions for the visitation of the sick. Quoting from a source, A source, a direction for the visitation of the sick, was composed by Anselm, the substance of which is as follows. Two previous questions were to be asked by the minister. The first was, Dost thou believe that thou deservest damnation?

16:35 The second was, Dost thou intend to lead a new life? When the sick man had returned an answer in the affirmative to these questions, he was further asked, Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? See the necessity of the atonement there. The sick man answered, I do so believe.

16:57 Then the minister says to him, See then, while life remains in thee, that thou repose thy confidence only in the death of Christ. Trust in nothing else. Commit thyself wholly to this death. Cover thyself wholly with this alone.

17:14 Mix thyself wholly with this death. Evolve thyself wholly in this death. And if the Lord will judge thee, say, Lord, I cast the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between myself and thy judgment. Otherwise I will not engage in judgment with thee.

17:31 And if he shall say to thee that thou art a sinner, say, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. If he shall say to thee, Thou hast deserved damnation, say, Lord, I cast the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Between me and my evil deserts. And I offer his merits for that merit which I ought to have had and have not.

17:54 If he shall say that he is angry with thee, say, Lord, I cast the death of the Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy displeasure. Wow, those are wonderful words to hear coming out of the 11th century, aren't they? But these were the words composed by Anselm. And I offer his merits for that merit which I ought to have had and have not.

18:13 And I offer his merits for that merit which I ought to have had and have not. For the instruction of ministers visiting the sick and dying. Isn't that wonderful? Now, also confusing.

18:24 How is this consistent with the overall context of medieval Roman Catholicism? That's a great question. But it does remind us, doesn't it, that we must be careful to make sweeping generalizations about medieval Christianity. Because this is not what you expect.

18:44 You don't expect to read when you come to a scholastic theologian about the way of salvation, is it? But it's there, okay?

Weaknesses in Anselm's View and Later Scholastic Developments

18:54 But and however, we have to discuss remaining weaknesses in Anselm's view. Maybe you've begun to spot them already.

19:05 In Anselm's construction, Christ's offerings are not yet clearly penal and strictly substitutionary. Anselm views them as a way of salvation. As a work of supererogation.

19:24 That is to say, Christ's death was a gift he gave to God that he didn't have to give to God. It was more than he was obliged to do. Therefore, because it was more than he was obliged to do, it was meritorious. It was a work of supererogation.

19:44 Which then merits reward. He views the punishment for sin and satisfaction as alternative. This is simply the application of the Germanic Roman maxim of law already applied to penance, now applied to the work of Christ. Berkhoff states, It represents the application of the merits of Christ to the sinner as a merely external transaction.

20:08 There is no hint of the mystical union of Christ and believers. The connection between the work of Christ and the transfer of the benefits of that work to his people is not understood. The significance of Christ's life of obedience. The significance for the work of Christ is not perceived.

20:24 We're going to say more about this in a second. But you see, there are some remaining problems here. Anselm would have told you Christ didn't have to die. There was no necessity for him to die.

20:35 And it's because there was no necessity for him to die that his death was meritorious. That he could give God something that was meritorious because it was something he did not owe God. Now, you see how...

20:50 Absent from that entire frame of mind is the imputation of sin.

20:55 Those kind of issues. And how it goes back to the fact that the attribute of God upon which the atonement is focused is not divine justice, but divine honor. And we'll come back to see how that is clarified by Luther. So, for...

21:21 And we'll... We'll say this as well, but it deserves to be said now.

21:25 So, you see, for Anselm, it was either punishment or satisfaction. Punishment or satisfaction.

21:38 But for Luther, it's going to be punishment through satisfaction.

21:45 So, Anselm was still engaged in the alternative. You can either be punished or you can make satisfaction. But for Luther, punishment is necessary to satisfaction. Well, we'll come back to that.

22:01 The developments in subsequent scholastics.

22:06 A, the early scholastics. Anselm's doctrine of the atonement gained a little recognition among the more well-known of the early scholastics. Abelard rejected it, teaching that God is love and needs no satisfaction in order to forgive the penitent. He's love.

22:22 He doesn't need to be satisfied in any way. His own theory resembles what we call today the moral influence theory. It reduced Christ to a teacher and a great example.

22:36 Of course, when your theory is merely the moral influence theory, the question becomes an example of what, pray tell. But that's a criticism we won't go into right here. Bernard of Clairvaux assailed Abelard's theory as rationalistic. You can see that.

22:55 If you read some of the, at least the one hymn, O Sacred Head Now Wounded, by Bernard of Clairvaux in the Trinity Hymnal. Bernard of Clairvaux assailed Abelard's theory as rationalistic. He makes, however, no advance reverting to traditional modes of speaking about the work of Christ. The later scholastics.

23:16 Berkhoff calls the later scholastics syncretistic. Because elements of both Anselm and Abelard can be found in them. In as much as Anselm's theory does find in Christ a great example of moral influence because of his work of satisfaction, while Abelard's theory rejects any thought of satisfaction, this must be seen as a victory for an increasing predominance of Anselmic teaching. In other words, Anselm can accommodate Abelard's view of moral example on the basis of his idea of atonement and satisfaction.

23:53 But Abelard cannot. Abelard can't accommodate, in his theory, Anselm's view of satisfaction. He must deny that. So, if someone teaches both, it's really, I think, a victory for the Anselmic view.

24:08 Peter the Lombard and Bonaventure clearly draw upon Anselm. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of a mystical union between Christ the Head and the Church, his members. In this way, progress was made toward a correct understanding. The means by which the merits of Christ were transferred to his people.

24:29 In the scholastics, however, this mystical union was bound up with sacramentalism. In a more negative vein, Thomas Aquinas, and in particular, Duns Scotus, declined from certain Anselmic advances. They denied the absolute necessity of the atonement. And this denial is grounded in their doctrine of the absolute power of God.

24:51 If God is absolute in power, then the atonement cannot be strengthened. Strictly necessary. It's only necessary because God decided it was necessary. It was not necessary to satisfy the unchangeable character of God.

25:09 God might have saved men in some other way, though the way chosen is, they would have said, the most fitting. As already intimated, this tendency culminated and is most clearly seen in Duns Scotus. Burkhoff summarizes, He asserts that, There was no inherent necessity for rendering satisfaction. Furthermore, he holds that even if the necessity of satisfaction were granted, it would not follow that it had to assume the exact form which it actually took.

25:40 It was not necessary that the one rendering it should be God or should be greater than the whole creation. One pious act of Adam might have served to atone for his first sin. Again, he does not consider it capable of proof that this satisfaction had to be rendered by a man. God might have accepted the deed.

25:57 It all depended on the arbitrary will of God. Duns denies the infinite value of the merits of Christ because they were merits of the human nature, which is, after all, finite. By an act of his will, however, God determined to accept them as sufficient. A merit that is not at all commensurate with the debt owed is willingly accepted by God, and this theory is generally called the acceptillation theory.

Luther's Refinement of the Atonement: Justice and Penal Substitution

26:26 All of that brings us to the next point. It brings us to Luther and the Reformation refinement of the doctrine of the atonement. First of all, the perspectives of Luther.

26:40 Luther begins with the insights of Anselm. He rejects the arbitrariness of the Scotus doctrine of the atonement, moving back toward Anselm's view of its necessity. He grounds the atonement like Anselm in the character of God. The focus, however, is not the honor of God, which, because of its...

27:03 That's a little soft, isn't it? It's soft because it's not as clear as saying that the atonement is grounded in the justice of God. It's grounded in the justice and righteousness of God. Berkhoff comments that this moves the atonement out of the realm of private insult, honor, into the realm of public law, justice.

27:29 Satisfaction rendered to God... God remains, however, the essence of the work of Christ.

27:34 The shift in the attribute of God most concerned in the necessity of satisfaction signals the advance embodied in Luther's thought. Elthaus comments on one aspect of this advance, and this next paragraph should be indented because it is a quotation. Christ has not only fulfilled the law, but he has also suffered the punishment which the law pronounces, over transgressors. Only this fully satisfies God's righteousness.

28:06 For Anselm, there were only two possibilities, either punishment or satisfaction. For Luther, satisfaction takes place through punishment, not of the sinner, but of Christ. So, for Anselm, there were two possibilities. For Luther, only one, satisfaction through punishment.

28:29 Luther sees... He sees that because of his full identification with the human condition, Christ can die under the wrath of God men deserve.

28:40 His sufferings are thus penal and substitutionary. Christ dies according to the will of the Father. Now, this is interesting. This is a point that Anselm struggled with and disputed, in fact.

28:55 He denied that Christ's death was the Father's will. Why? Well, because it was the Father's will. Well, because it was the Father's will.

29:01 Well, then Christ would have to die. And if Christ had to die, his death wouldn't be meritorious. Follow that? In a lengthy section of Cur Deus Homo, Anselm struggled to mitigate biblical statements to the effect that God the Father willed his son's death.

29:18 Anselm could not admit this for two reasons. One, if the death of Christ was God's, should read, preceptive will, it could not be a work of supererogation. Two, if the death of Christ was God's preceptive, preceptive will, this impugned the wisdom and love of God. How could God in wisdom and love will the death of his son?

29:41 Well, there's no problem for Luther because he sees that Christ's sufferings are penal and substitutionary, an idea that Anselm did not see clearly. Another aspect of the advance embodied in Luther also concerns the satisfaction made by Christ. For Luther, Christ makes satisfaction for sinners in a twofold, He fulfills the will of God expressed in the law, and he suffers the punishment of sin, the wrath of God. Both are done in our place and for our benefit.

30:13 This superseded Anselm's conviction that Christ's life of obedience could not be redemptive since it was already owed God. Again, you see, Anselm's being consistent here, you know, but consistently wrong. But he is saying, well, of course, Christ as a man had to live a perfect life. He owed that to God.

30:34 And just because he owed it to God, it couldn't be meritorious, couldn't provide merit, because it was already owed to God. It was something he owed God, so doing it could provide no work of supererogation that could be applied to other people.

30:49 There is a strong emphasis in Luther on Christ's victory over Satan. Some have even wished to find in this the key to his doctrine of the atonement. They suggest that for Luther, satisfaction is made to Satan, not God. That is to say, there are reputable, at least in some circles, reputable theologians who will argue that Luther held the satisfaction to Satan theory of the atonement.

31:21 This view is, of course, false. Certainly for Luther, Christ's victory over Satan and all our enemies is important, but that victory flows out of a more basic aspect of his work, Satan has power over men only because they are under the wrath of God. And, of course, therefore, an atonement that satisfies the wrath of God then frees them from the power of Satan.

31:49 All this is brought to a clear formulation in Protestant scholasticism. Warfield comments on the systematic statement given to Luther's perspectives by later Protestant theologians. These vital religious conceptions were reduced to scientific statement by the Protestant scholastics, by whom it was that the completed doctrine of satisfaction was formulated with a thoroughness and comprehensiveness of which has made it the permanent possession of the church. Later Warfield classes Truettan and John Owen, Francis Truettan and John Owen as two such Protestant scholastics.

Faith Alone: The Reformation's Response to the Sacrament of Penance

32:31 Now, I just need to change my notes here a moment. We're going to go right on. And commence faith alone in the early reformers.

32:45 Now, the starting point of the doctrine of justification by faith alone may surprise you. It is the sacrament of penance. That is to say, it was an interaction with and as a kind of substitute for the sacrament of penance and of repentance that faith alone, justification by faith alone, was devised. Number one here is just to make that point.

33:16 The close relation between the sacrament of repentance and the doctrine of justification. They are both the mechanism of salvation.

33:28 Though baptism justified in medieval theology, since all men sinned subsequent to baptism, therefore nullified its effects, the sacrament of repentance was the practical means of salvation. The doctrine of justification, the doctrine of justification was then developed in conjunction and interaction with the sacrament of repentance. In this conjunction, one may compare Calvin's treatment in book three, chapters four and five, dealing with, this is right in the midst of his development of the doctrine of the application of salvation and the doctrine of justification, the sophistry of the schools concerning repentance, unconfession and satisfaction, and a smack in the middle of his treatment of justification. One indication that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was developed in the early reformers. The sacrament of repentance. The medieval doctrine. Well, we've talked about this somewhat, but let me review its elements.

34:27 One must keep in mind that the free will is seen in both the earlier and later conception of the medieval sacrament of repentance as decisive.

34:39 The early conception, of course, said that contrition brought one to confession, leading to a priestly absolution, and then leading to works of satisfaction, the fruit fitting for repentance. But whatever might have been remnants of Bible remaining in the early conception kind of disappeared in the later conception of the sacrament of repentance as requiring only attrition, that is to say, a sorrow for sin based merely on a fear of hell and not true sorrow for sin. Confession to the priest, absolution by the priest, which then created contrition, and indulgences which could be substituted for satisfaction and works of satisfaction. So the medieval doctrine was a system of synergism, merits, and satisfaction.

35:33 And that brings us to the Reformation reaction. By the way, I don't know why I have an A and not a B there. That's terrible outlining. Do not follow that example, okay?

35:44 Every time you have an A, you must have a B. When you have a 1, you must have a 2. Otherwise, you're in trouble. Otherwise, you're in trouble.

35:48 Otherwise, you're in trouble. Otherwise, you're in trouble. Otherwise, you're in trouble. Your outline is outlawed, okay?

35:52 Anyway, just a hint. Three, the Reformation reaction,

35:59 general criticisms. A, general criticisms. Salvation was by grace alone for the strict Augustinians, who were the early reformers. There may be no synergism.

36:13 There must be only monergism. No working together with God to achieve our salvation. God alone working to our salvation. Salvation was by Christ alone.

36:26 Also, there was no satisfaction to be made by human beings. And salvation was by faith alone. There could be no merits in the whole matter.

36:40 Specific evaluation. Repentance is thought of as a work and part of a merit system. Pardon me. Let me say that again.

36:51 Repentance is thought of as a work Repentance is thought of as a work and part of a merit system vitiates its character. Calvin Institutes 343. It makes repentance impracticable for concerned sinners. Calvin writes in the Institutes, But if forgiveness of sins depends on the conditions to which they bind it, nothing can be more wretched and deplorable than our situation.

37:18 Contrition, they represent as the first step in obtaining pardon in the end. Contrition, they represent as the first step in obtaining pardon in the end. It is due. That is full and complete.

37:26 In other words, we have to be properly, duly sorrowful for our sins. That is to say, we've got to be as sorry for our sins as they deserve to be sorry for. Meanwhile, they decide not when one may feel secure of having performed this contrition in due measure. So they say it has to be due, but they don't tell you how much, and when it has become due.

37:55 I admit, says Calvin, that we are bound strongly and incessantly to urge every man bitterly to lament his sins and thereby stimulate himself more and more to dislike and hate them. For this is the repentance to salvation not to be repented of. But when such bitterness of sorrow is demanded as may correspond to the magnitude of the offense and be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, miserable consciences are sadly perplexed and tormented when they see that the contrition due for sin is laid upon them, and yet they have no measure of what it is due, so as to enable them to determine that they have made full payment. If they say we are to do what in us lies, remember Luther's problem with that statement, we are always brought back to the same point, for when will any man venture to promise himself that he has done his utmost and be willing sin?

38:46 So, here's Calvin's big problem with the Romish doctrine of penance is you can never know when you had. And therefore, any peace of conscience and assurance of salvation became impossible. Calvin had a big problem with that.

39:03 It also focuses sinners' attention in the wrong place. Calvin writes in the Institutes, but there is a great difference between teaching that forgiveness of sins is merited by a full and complete contrition, which the sinner never can give, and instructing him to hunger and thirst after the mercy of God, that recognizing his wretchedness his turmoil, weariness, and captivity, you may show him where he should seek refreshment, rest, and liberty, and teach him in his humility to give glory to God. And the other problem is that it neglects the main part of repentance, sorrow for inner corruption, and its concentration on sin and repentance as external acts, Calvin writes in the Institutes. Secondly, by withdrawing sinners from a true sense of their sins, it makes them hypocritical. It makes them hypocritical and ignorant, both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly occupied with the enumeration of their sins, they lose sight of that lurking hydra, their secret iniquities, and internal defilements, the knowledge of which would have made them sensible of their misery.

40:12 But the surest rule of confession is to acknowledge and confess our sins to be an abyss so great as to exceed our comprehension.

40:23 And therefore, to acknowledge and to confess and to admit that we are never able to duly confess our sins, in the sense that Calvin means truly confess them, but not duly confess them.

40:41 So, what's the thorough construction of the early reformers with regard to the way of salvation? The application of salvation to the sinner was then thoroughly different than the medieval sacrament of repentance. It was constructed in interaction with it. So, there was the monergistic operation of the spirit.

41:02 This took the place of the synergism between free will and grace. There was faith, which was placed first and in the place of contrition, signifying the priority of grace to works. There was justification by God. This was by faith alone, not through the sacrament of repentance.

41:19 And this replaces absolution. And there was the repentance of good works. This is seen as the fruit of faith and justification, not their cause. Good works flowing from faith and not satisfaction is the necessary consequence of justification.

41:37 So, it's good works. The good works that manifest repentance, that flow out of justification, this is certain, but it is not the cause of justification. Satisfaction is not. These things.

41:59 These things and not satisfaction are the necessary consequence of justification.

Luther's Doctrine of Justification: Double Imputation and Forensic Righteousness

42:07 Now, I'm not quite sure. Let me see what's happening here. I think I may have a problem in the outline. I don't want you to be confused by it.

42:15 All right. A starting point, the sacrament of repentance.

42:20 All right. That was an A.

42:27 Luther's view should be a B and not an A, gentlemen. I apologize.

42:33 This treatment of Luther's views owes a great deal to Paul's view of repentance. Paul Elthaus. I think that's how you say his name, by the way, not Althaus or whatever you want to say. Paul Elthaus.

42:46 Theology of Martin Luther. My studies on Luther, since using his work in these lectures written many years ago, originally have proved the faithfulness of his treatment of Luther to me again and again. Preliminary considerations on justification in Luther.

43:03 A, its importance for Luther. Elthaus remarks, The doctrine of justification is not, simply, one doctrine among others, but, as Luther declares, the basic and chief article of faith with which the church stands or falls and on which its entire doctrine depends.

43:24 And then we must notice its relation to the work of Christ in Luther's thought. They are, of course, intimately related. In one sense, yeah, they're intimately related.

43:40 And then,

43:42 in the second place, notice the nature of justification. It's structure. There's a double imputation, which provides the sinner with, this is Luther's wonderful phrase, an alien righteousness. Double imputation here is really a negative and positive imputation.

44:03 A negative imputation, that is to say, our sins are imputed to Christ and paid for by him, and his righteousness, a positive imputation, is imputed to us and we receive the benefits. It's structure. It's basis, Luther terms this variously as God's mercy and Christ's righteousness. It's a fact.

44:22 The Christian is at one and the same time, for Luther, a righteous man and a sinner. Now, this famous statement of Luther has actually two meanings or applications or uses by Luther. Eltow speaks of the two-fold sense of at one and the same time a righteous man and a sinner. There is the forensic sense, having to do with guilt and forgiveness of sins.

44:48 In myself, outside of Christ, I am a sinner. In Christ, outside of myself, I am a righteous man. That's the forensic sense of at one and the same time a righteous man and a sinner. But there's also an ethical sense having to do with one's moral condition and conduct.

45:10 I think Luther says this when he says something like, I don't, I don't know that I'm going to get this completely correct, but he says something like, the Christian is always a sinner, always a righteous man, and always a penitent. Something like that. And Luther applies this to Romans 7, 14 and following, which he believes to refer to a Christian.

45:37 The instrument of justification is faith.

Q&A: Consequent Absolute Necessity and Roman Catholic Views

45:41 And I think that is where I'll stop in this lecture and I'll stop in this lecture and take your questions. All right? That's lecture one.

46:06 All right. Questions on what we've seen so far about the theology of the early reformers? Yes, Ben? We talked about Anselm's doctrine on the absolute necessity of the atonement.

46:23 In John Murray's book, he talks about it being the consequent absolute necessity. Mm-hmm. Can you make sense of that? Mm-hmm.

46:31 Can you make sense of that? Mm-hmm. Can you make sense of that? Mm-hmm.

46:31 Can you make sense of that? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

46:31 Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Can you maybe just explain that? Sure.

46:34 Murray's not saying anything different. He's just adding an element to the Anselmic and Lutheran doctrine of the necessity of the atonement. He's saying that he's wanting to be sure that we know the atonement is not absolutely necessary as if God's nature forced him to make atonement for men. Now, there are modern theologians that say something like that.

47:00 No, what he's saying is that one, once God has freely chosen, it wasn't necessary, it was free, voluntary, once God freely chose to save men, consequent upon that free decision, the atonement became absolutely necessary. Right? So, consequent absolute necessity is not any kind of qualification of the Lutheran or Anselmic doctrine. It is an addition or supplement to it, okay?

47:36 Jeremy Bernier asked, does Rome have a consistent view of the atonement today?

47:44 This may be prejudice and it may be ignorance, but I'm not sure Rome has a consistent view of anything in our day except its own infallibility, frankly. I think that you might find in Roman theologians all sorts of different views. I mean, I'm sure some of them would affirm something much like substitutionary atonement, or at least a meritorious satisfaction view of the atonement, but I would be surprised if you couldn't find other Roman Catholic theologians in good standing that would look a whole lot more like liberal Protestants. Yes?

48:29 One thing that a lot of people don't realize with the Roman Catholic Church is it's such a wide, I mean, it's in some ways as wide as Protestantism, you know, in terms of the types of views that are presented. Yeah, and that's startling because it seems inconsistent with their doctrine of papal infallibility. And yet, this reminds me of a point that Doug Wilson makes in his Persuasions book, that, you know, you know, if the Bible isn't self-authenticating and self-interpreting, why should we think that papal decrees are self-authenticating and self-interpreting? And why can't they be subject to a broad range of interpretation? That's a really relevant point, isn't it? Because a Roman's going to say you need papal infallibility because the Bible is subject to many different interpretations.

49:35 Well, but if the Bible's subject to many different interpretations, so also are the dogmas of proclaim by papal infallibility. So, there's something basically wrong with that argument, and that's the point that Wilson is making. Okay, let's take a break, and we'll come back at about 25 till.