The most authentic – and heartwrenching – Christmas message I’ve heard this year

From BBC news:

Hannah Saaf, 28, of St Michael’s Hill in Kingsdown, Bristol, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving at Bristol Crown Court in September.

Sam Riddall was killed in May as he walked with friends in Westbury-on-Trym on his way home from a church.

The Bristol University law graduate had been travelling at at least 61mph (98km/h) in a 30mph zone, behind the wheel of a white Ford Focus.

And here’s the message from Sam’s dad:

In four days time we celebrate Christmas, and it’s going to be our first Christmas without our Sam, and it’s going to be very hard for us indeed, because we still miss him very much.

At Christmas we remember that God sent his son Jesus into the world to bring peace. And it’s this same God that is giving us the strength and helping us to forgive Hannah for the terrible thing she’s done to us by killing our son.

It’s not easy. It’s not going to be easy. But with God’s help we know that it is possible.

  • Share/Bookmark
21st December, 2009 | Category: Forgiveness, Justification |

Heavy metal for kids on iTunes – Ben Pakula

Our whole family (aged 35, 31, 7, 5 and 2) has loved listening to Ben Pakula’s heavy metal album for kids, A Very Special Tent. The Album is now available on iTunes. Just type “Ben Pakula” into the iTunes Store search box (if you don’t have iTunes, you need to download and install the program first).

If you know any kids in late primary school, let them have a listen: these songs are musically and lyrically awesome. If you just want to download a few tunes rather than the whole album, Knowing Jesus as my Boss, Say ‘No’ to Sin, and Powerful Love are my top picks from a consistently excellent album.

If you want more info on Ben Pakula and his music, I wrote a rave review at the Sola Panel last year.

  • Share/Bookmark
10th December, 2009 | Category: Atonement, Justification, Sanctification |

Thomas Cranmer the Protestant reformer during the reign of King Henry VIII

Lionel Windsor (2004)

Introduction: A Protestant Reformer?

For a comfortable theoretician to assess the actions of a man caught up in the cut and thrust of national and international politics is a precarious business, as Martin Bucer warned when, in 1537, the humanist Grynaeus lamented Thomas Cranmer’s slowness to bring about reform in England.1 To understand Cranmer’s actions we must transcend stereotypical surface judgments, for he was a man living in a complex and often dangerous world, with an equally complex and dangerous king. To assess whether Cranmer was a Protestant reformer we need to carefully investigate three questions. Firstly, did Cranmer have personal Protestant theological convictions? Secondly, did Cranmer actively seek to promote these convictions by his public policy? And thirdly, did Cranmer have a measurable effect in his efforts to promote his convictions? These questions cannot be considered in isolation, but must be answered against the political backdrop of Henrician England.

The ‘Orthodoxy’ of Henry VIII

Bromiley assesses Henry as ‘fundamentally a traditionalist’.2 Yet to describe Henry as ‘orthodox’ is a gross oversimplification. Undoubtedly, his ‘instinctive’ conservatism often triumphed.3 This is most clearly demonstrated by his early anti-Lutheran Defence of the Seven Sacraments (1521), where he defends, for example, the Pope’s universal supremacy and the priestly jurisdiction in confession.4 Yet during the rest of his reign Henry rejected significant aspects of this position. Not only does he completely repudiate Papal supremacy, but he also moves away from other fundamental aspects of Catholic doctrine. A notable example is the absence of any reference to the divine institution of auricular confession to priests in the Six Articles of 1539, which severely weakens the Catholic doctrine of priestly jurisdiction regardless of one’s view of Papal authority.5

A more accurate assessment is that Henry allowed his political strategy to take precedence over all other doctrines. As Null observes, ‘For Henry, obedience was the chief theological virtue [. . .]’; a prerequisite for salvation.6 His courtly strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ meant that his theological strategy, as Cranmer once observed to Capito, was to play two competing groups off one another and then pronounce his own judgment.7 This ‘judgment’ was largely determined by political factors. Henry desired that no one group gained too much power: in July 1540 he simultaneously executed three alleged Papalists and three Lutherans.8 Furthermore, Henry was influenced by foreign and domestic issues: for example, the conservative Act of Six Articles coincided with Henry’s need to placate the newly allied Catholic forces of France and Spain.9 This assessment of England’s monarch is important for our understanding of Cranmer’s actions, since working for a king like Henry was a complex and often bewildering game.

Cranmer’s Personal Religious Convictions

To assess Cranmer’s personal convictions is not a straightforward task. His surviving correspondence is almost entirely official rather than personal.10 Furthermore, the strong government controls and inhibitions which applied to these documents must be taken into consideration.11 Hence historians have come to differing conclusions about Cranmer’s beliefs, particularly early in his career. The most vexing question concerns Cranmer’s theological ‘touchstone’: which doctrine, if any, exercised the central and controlling influence over all of Cranmer’s beliefs and actions?

For some, Cranmer’s central belief was the authority of Scripture according to its ancient interpretation, but it took a long time for this cautious scholar to come to any firm conclusions on the basis of his Scriptural exegesis. Having been influenced by Erasmian humanism at his early years at Cambridge, Cranmer gave Scripture normative priority for all of his adult life.12 Bromiley maintains that this committed Cranmer to caution in deciding matters of doctrine, to the extent that Bromiley is unsure of Cranmer’s convictions even in 1536.13 Brownell suggests that this caution allowed Cranmer great leeway in his political compromises.14 Yet it is difficult to believe that a man so passionately committed to the Scriptural basis for Henry’s annulment,15 who also broke his vow of celibacy by marrying Osiander’s niece as early as 1531,16 would be so unsure of his commitment to more weighty matters.

Others posit the Royal Supremacy as the controlling element of Cranmer’s belief. Certainly, Cranmer had a very high (‘Erastian’) view of the status of the King in directing his subjects’ affairs, both spiritual and temporal. In 1540, Cranmer replies to a doctrinal commission,

‘All Christian princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of their subjects, as well concerning the administration of God’s word for the cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things political and civil governance’.17

Furthermore, at Edward’s coronation in 1547, Cranmer calls him the New ‘Josiah’ and ‘Christ’s vicar’, using the language of both Old Testament theocracy and the claims of the Roman Pontiff.18 This has led some to label Cranmer as an ‘extremist’ in his Erastianism: God’s temporal and spiritual law does not stand outside the prince but is determined through the prince.19 Cranmer effectively places the King in the power vacuum left by the Pope.20 So, according to Ridley, his obedience to the Prince overrode all his other beliefs.21

A number of things can be said in reply. Firstly, we must understand Cranmer’s comments in context. In the answer quoted above, princely rule is set in the context of the Spirit-led wisdom of God’s people and is portrayed merely as a more complete form of God’s guidance of the early Church.22 His rhetorical language at Edward’s coronation is an exposition the Pauline view of authority in Romans 13.23 Hence Cranmer is not replacing the Pope with the King; he is expounding a Scriptural basis for the wise governance of God’s people. Thirdly, ‘absolute obedience’ to a monarch who, as we have seen, is constantly shifting his doctrinal ground would have been an impossible cause to champion; there would be no consistency or conscience in anything Cranmer did were he to make the Royal Supremacy his core belief. Even Rafferty, who believes that Royal Supremacy is Cranmer’s controlling doctrine, has to question Cranmer’s consistency.24 It is better, with MacCulloch, to regard Cranmer’s view of the Royal Supremacy as God’s provision of a means to an end, rather than an altar on which all else is sacrificed.25

A means to what end? Null persuasively argues that, from the time of Cranmer’s contact with the German reformers just prior to 1533, his central and determining doctrine is sola fide: Justification by Faith Alone.26 The early and ongoing influence of the continental reformers on Cranmer, particularly Bucer and Bullinger, is meticulously documented and well-defended by MacCulloch’s biography.27 Null and Hall also defend this influence, Null with detailed exegesis of the documentation.28 Hall, however, splits hairs when he contends that Cranmer mediated Luther’s doctrine so that the fruits of justification were more prominent and the forensic element of justification less prominent.29 Cranmer, like Luther and very much in opposition to medieval scholasticism, believed that while both forensic justification and good works are important, nevertheless the former is always the basis of the latter.30

The centrality of the justification of the totally depraved sinner solely on the basis of the mercy of God through faith and not by anything intrinsic to the sinner, Null argues, has explanatory power for almost all of Cranmer’s other beliefs and actions. His personal forgiveness of enemies despite his official sternness is a simple example.31 More significantly, solifidianism led inevitably to an understanding of God’s complete sovereignty, both in personal predestination and in the course of human history. Cranmer believed that in God’s loving grace he has so directed the course of human affairs that Henry VIII is God’s elect ruler. Despite the faults of Henry (and his vice-gerent Cromwell), God’s loving plan triumphs.32 Hence the Royal Supremacy is determined, controlled and ultimately subservient to sola fide. Cranmer’s ‘strategy’ was to contend for the gospel, obey the king and trust God for the outcome. We will explore the implications of this below when we consider Cranmer’s public policy.

Like Luther, the main area in which Cranmer disagreed with the Southern Continental Reformers was his doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.33 Cranmer himself admitted that he changed from belief in ‘real presence’ to ‘spiritual presence’ in 1547 or 1548.34 It was once argued that his pre-1547 view was essentially conservative Catholic.35 However, most scholars now agree that Cranmer’s acceptance of Luther’s view on salvation also involved agreement (perhaps independently) with Luther’s view of the Eucharist; he rejected transubstantiation and the sacrificial aspect but retained the real presence throughout his Archbishopric under Henry.36 This will be important when we come to consider Cranmer’s treatment of Frith and Lambert. Sola fide was behind Cranmer’s rejection of the mass as a sacrifice; since Christ’s sacrifice was once-for-all.37

Cranmer’s Public Policy as Archbishop

We have seen that Cranmer’s personal solifidian beliefs were essentially ‘Protestant’ (or ‘evangelical’, to use MacCulloch’s less anachronistic term) throughout 1533–1549, even if his Eucharistic views were Lutheran rather than strictly ‘Reformed’. Now we come to consider Cranmer’s public policy.

General considerations

When we set the boundaries for what constitutes ‘public policy’, we must remember that Cranmer was a theologian, a scholar and an archbishop. Although his actions were inevitably political, Cranmer was not a politician, either by temperament or by appointment.38 Elliott is unfair when he characterises Cranmer’s willingness to correct Henry in private but not in public as ‘weakness’ or the ‘inability to act consistently’.39 Private correction was Cranmer’s mandate; public correction was not. Hence Cranmer’s public policy as Archbishop include all of his actions undertaken in his official capacity which affected the English public, whether or not these actions were immediately open to public view.

In 1533–34, we see Cranmer working hard to place evangelicals in positions of influence in England. For example, he removed the conservative Warham as Archdeacon of Canterbury, and moved to have Latimer and Shaxton appointed to preach before the King and Queen.40 However, from 1535 to 1539, Thomas Cromwell had effective control over the spiritual jurisdiction in England, eclipsing Cranmer’s jurisdiction and even seizing some of his lands.41 Hence, during Cromwell’s ascendancy, Cranmer’s public policy was mostly limited to his attempts to persuade Cromwell and Henry through copious correspondence,42 and to persuade convocation through debate. Between 1540 and 1547, Cromwell was no longer alive but Henry himself was more conservative-leaning and so Cranmer was even less free to act independently. It is only when Edward succeeded the throne that Cranmer was given direct responsibility to enact policy.

Reforming Public Activities

We will briefly survey some areas where Cranmer acted to reform the church in his official capacity as Archbishop.

Cranmer strenuously advocated for Lutheran doctrine in the Convocation debating the Ten Articles of 1536. 43 His influence and style is clearly present; the document is a compromise between the old and the new, yet in it, Cranmer achieved a great deal for the evangelical cause.44 The Bible and only the first four ecumenical councils (i.e. those accepted by Luther) are fundamental for all doctrine.45 Penance, while necessary for salvation, is defined almost exclusively in terms of justification by faith (realisation of sin and the recognition that we have no works of our own which can satisfy God).46 Works are ‘necessary’ only as fruit of justification, not as a prerequisite for justification.47 The final articles, concerning images, saints, etc. are not commanded by God as necessary for salvation, but rather are commanded by the king as necessary for peaceful order in his realm.48 These activities are permitted, but ultimately superfluous to Christ-centred trust and obedience.49

The Bishop’s Book of 1537 represents an even greater achievement for Cranmer in his policy of debate and persuasion. By convincing Cromwell of the political benefits inherent in achieving closer doctrinal ties with German Lutheran princes,50 and by strenuous argumentation in synod (which he ended up effectively chairing), he achieved a document ‘full of Lutheran overtones’, particularly in its solifidian redefinition of penance based on Patristic sources.51 Cranmer was pleased with the outcome, and the Bishop’s Book, while never really receiving Henry’s approval, was issued as a book of sermons (‘proto-Homilies’).52 When Henry did comment, Cranmer’s private corrections bear witness to his anti-scholastic solifidianism.53

‘For after our justification only begin we to work as the law of God requireth [. . .] they that think they may come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits, or by any other mean than is above rehearsed [i.e. by faith alone], they go from Christ, they renounce his grace’.54

This is private correction, unimpeded by the need for public compromise; yet its intention is change in public policy, for its addressee is the King himself.

It is also important to consider Cranmer’s role in the dissemination of the English Bible. Technically, ‘it was the Vice-gerent who led the initiative, with Cranmer merely as cheerleader’.55 Yet this ‘cheerleading’ was, most likely, the key to the success of the enterprise. We have seen Cranmer’s commitment to Scriptural authority. He saw the need for the whole populace to have access to this authority and so was the relentless persuasive force behind Cromwell’s actions.56 His delight at the achievement, in 1537, bears witness to his interest in the matter.57 The Bible was such a success that the conservative Act of Six Articles (1539) did not immediately change Henry’s mind on its dissemination.58 Cranmer’s 1540 Preface to the Great Bible shows his persistent commitment to its propagation.59 At a dangerous time for evangelical belief, Cranmer does not push his doctrine directly. Rather, he urges people to read the Bible, trusting God for the outcome. His caution against overly contentious arguments is not the germ of the classic Anglican via media,60 but rather Cranmer’s attempt to forestall Henry’s wrath which might prevent the Bible being disseminated any further.61

When Henry’s policy turned in a more conservative direction with the Act of Six Articles (1539), Cranmer’s ability to influence public policy was severely curtailed.62 Nevertheless, he did what he could. His ‘hard-core opposition’63 meant that the word transubstantiation did not appear in the Six Articles, and auricular confession was weakened in its import, as we have already noted.64 In 1541–43 he won some minor victories against holy days, shrines and relics, and against plans to re-introduce medieval terminology into the English Bible.65 He kept copious notes on solifidianism in Scripture and the Church Fathers, preparing for opportunities to refute the conservative doctrine of the King’s Book.66 In 1544 he released an English translation of the Litany, using ‘more than the liberty of a translator’ in improving certain aspects of it.67 During this period, he was active, yet restrained.

Disputed Public Activities

We now turn to those of Cranmer’s activities which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism because of their perceived hypocrisy, inconsistency or cowardice.

Often Cranmer is accused of legal inconsistency. At his consecration in Westminster in 1533, his oath of loyalty to the Pope was straightaway followed by a solemn protestation that this oath would not override his loyalty to the law of God, the King, and the reform of the English Church. Rafferty points out the legal contradictions here; both he and MacCulloch accuse Cranmer of hypocrisy.68 They detect a similar inconsistency in Cranmer’s later annulment of the Boleyn marriage.69 Yet, against the backdrop of an age when the King’s momentary will was usually more pertinent than the written oaths and laws, these oaths and laws themselves being fluid, transitory and inconsistent, Cranmer’s ‘hypocrisy’ was technical only. He argued solidly and vigorously for his position so that everybody knew where he stood; and then when it was obvious that he could do no more, he obeyed his King.70 This is consistent with his belief that the purposes of the sovereign God would prevail and his job was to ‘Fear God [and] Honour the King’ (1 Peter 2:16, kjv).

There are times when Cranmer takes action as Archbishop against people with whom he has some sympathy. Two notable examples are John Frith (1533) and John Lambert (1538).71 In both cases, evangelical men were brought before Cranmer to pronounce a verdict (although the sentencing was done by others). Their crime was sacramentarianism: denying the real presence in the Eucharist. Since, as we have seen, Cranmer disagreed with this particular view, he pronounced them guilty.72 Cranmer’s sympathy to Frith is seen in a letter describing his repeated attempts to persuade him to change his beliefs, avoiding the term ‘heretic’ and giving the Continental originator of the belief his Latinized academic surname ‘Œcolampadius’, thus ‘recognizing his status as an evangelical fellow-scholar’.73 Yet he had no qualms about committing either Frith or Lambert to trial, no doubt fearing that their ‘so notably erroneous’ views would endanger the evangelical cause in England.74 In neither case is Cranmer hypocritical; in fact, in Lambert’s case, he assiduously avoided the term ‘transubstantiation’ while arguing for a real presence.75

The executions of Anne Boleyn (1536) and Thomas Cromwell (1540) were more personally difficult for Cranmer. Anne was an ally for the evangelical cause and Cranmer’s personal friend;76 Cromwell, as we have seen, was an important agent for reform and also a friend. In both cases, Cranmer did not instigate the accusation of Treason and could not have prevented their deaths.77 In both cases, shocked by learning of the accusations against them, he wrote letters to Henry defending their integrity.78 And in both cases, he escaped without being implicated in their crimes, despite his obvious personal anguish at their deaths.79 Here, his inaction rather than his action is more frequently criticised.80 Yet he is also frequently defended for his courage.81 Moreover, Cranmer is implicated in the persecutions of evangelicals following the passing of the Act of Six Articles. The political background to Henry’s reversal of policy is the threat of a conservative invasion from the newly-allied France and Spain, and the conservative backlash within England itself.82 Cranmer, in obedience to his King, voted for and enforced the Six Articles.83 He also voted for the subsequent bill of attainder that declared the evangelicals Barnes, Garrett and Jerome heretics.

In all these events, was Cranmer culpably compromised?84 Should he have offered himself for martyrdom?85 In accordance with our earlier assessment of Cranmer’s doctrine, we may conclude that Cranmer saw the cause of evangelical doctrine as greater than the deaths of individuals. This is not because he was a heartless ideologue, but because, with Scripture and the Church Fathers, he believed in a glorious afterlife such that martyrdom was not a final blow for God’s elect. Cranmer may well have been prepared to die; but he saw that he had God’s work to do in England and he was not going to needlessly remove himself from that task. Fear, confusion, naivety and indecision may all have played their part, but it was Cranmer’s solifidianism and its corollaries that played the determining role in his public policy.

Conclusion: An Effective Protestant Reformer

The enthronement of Edward VI (1547) marked the culmination of Cranmer’s work and the temporary vindication of his trust in God’s sovereignty over history. His Book of Homilies were based on the strong solifidian doctrine developed during Henry’s reign and foreshadowed in the Bishop’s Book.86 His prior forging of strong evangelical links both at home and abroad enabled Cranmer to put Protestant teachers such as Ridley, Latimer, Bucer, Fagius and others in positions of authority and influence in England.87 His long-term advocacy for the English Bible had paved the way for lay education in Christian doctrine, of which the Book of Common Prayer (1549) was the next logical step. Cranmer was truly a Protestant Reformer, in belief and in action, even though he was not a politician and many of his endeavours took years to bear fruit in the political arena.

Bibliography

Ayris, Paul. ‘God’s Vicegerent and Christ’s Vicar: the Relationship Between the Crown and the Archbishopric of Canterbury, 1533–53’. Pages 115–56 in Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar. Edited by Paul Ayris & David Selwyn. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993

Bromiley, G. W. Thomas Cranmer: Archbishop and Martyr. London: The Church Book Room Press, 1956.

Brooks, Peter N. ‘Cranmer from His Correspondence’. The Expository Times 101/1 (1989): 8–12.

Brownell, Kenneth. ‘Thomas Cranmer: Compromiser or Strategist?’. Pages 1–16 in The Reformation of Worship: Papers Read at the 1989 Westminster Conference. London: Westminster Conference, 1989

Clifford, Alan C. ‘Cranmer as Reformer’. Evangelical Quarterly 63/2 (1991): 99–122.

Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone (eds.). ‘Cranmer, Thomas’. Pages 428 in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

_______. ‘Henry VIII’. Pages 752–54 in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Elliott, Maurice. ‘Cranmer, a Man Under Authority: An Introduction’. Churchman 109/1 (1995): 61–65.

_______. ‘Cranmer’s Attitude to the Bible: “Lucerna Pedibus Meis Verbum Tuum”’. Churchman 109/1 (1995): 66–76.

_______. ‘Cranmer’s Attitude to the Monarchy: Royal Absolutism and the Godly Prince’. Churchman 109/3 (1995): 238–49.

_______. ‘Cranmer’s Attitude to the Papacy: “And as for the Pope, I Refuse Him as Christ’s Enemy”’. Churchman 109/2 (1995): 132–42.

Hall, Basil. ‘Cranmer’s Relations with Erasmianism and Lutheranism’. Pages 3–37 in Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar. Edited by Paul Ayris & David Selwyn. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993

Kastan, David S. ‘“The Noyse of the New Bible”: Reform and Reaction in Henrician England’. Pages 46–68 in Religion and Culture in Renaissance England. Edited by Claire McEachern and Debora Shuger. Cambridge: University Press, 1997

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ‘Archbishop Cranmer: Concord and Tolerance in a Changing Church’. Pages 199–215 in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Edited by Ole P. Grell and Bob Scribner. Cambridge: University Press, 1996

______. Thomas Cranmer: a Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Null, Ashley. Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance: Renewing the Power to Love. Oxford: University Press, 2000.

Rafferty, Oliver P. ‘Thomas Cranmer and the Royal Supremacy’. The Heythrop Journal 31 (1990): 129–49.

Redworth, Glyn. ‘A Study in the Formulation of Policy: The Genesis and Evolution of the Act of Six Articles’. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37/1 (1986): 42–67.

Ridley, Jasper. Thomas Cranmer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Primary Document Sources

Cranmer, Thomas. Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556. Edited by John E. Cox. The Parker Society. Cambridge: University Press, 1846.

Cranmer, Thomas. Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Edited by John E. Cox. The Parker Society. Cambridge: University Press, 1844.

Hardwick, Charles. A History of the Articles of Religion: to Which Is Added a Series of Documents, from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615, Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. Revised ed. London: Bell and Daldy, 1859.

Henry VIII. Defence of the Seven Sacraments. Edited by Louis O’Donovan. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908.

Henry VIII. The King’s Book: Or, a Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man. Edited by T. A. Lacey. Originally pub. 1543. London: SPCK, 1932.

Henry VIII. ‘The Six Articles Act, 1539’. Pages 303–19 in Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Edited by Henry Gee and William J. Hardy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1910

1 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: a Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 233–34.

2 G. W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer: Archbishop and Martyr (London: The Church Book Room Press, 1956), 36.

3 Glyn Redworth, ‘A Study in the Formulation of Policy: The Genesis and Evolution of the Act of Six Articles’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37/1 (1986): 47.

4 Henry VIII, Defence of the Seven Sacraments (ed. Louis O’Donovan; New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908), 200–9, 326–43.

5 The phrase ‘by the law of God’ which appears in articles 2–5 is replaced by ‘expedient and necessary to be retained’ in the sixth article on confession. See Henry VIII, ‘The Six Articles Act, 1539’, in Documents Illustrative of English Church History (ed. Henry Gee and William J. Hardy; London: Macmillan and Co., 1910), 305–6.

6 Ashley Null, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance: Renewing the Power to Love (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 7.

7 Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556. (ed. John E. Cox; The Parker Society; Cambridge: University Press, 1846), 340–41. See MacCulloch, Cranmer, 183.

8 F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.), ‘Henry VIII’, in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 752–54, 753.

9 Redworth, ‘Formulation of Policy’, 47–49.

10 Peter N. Brooks, ‘Cranmer from His Correspondence’, The Expository Times 101/1 (1989): 8.

11 Basil Hall, ‘Cranmer’s Relations with Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, in Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar (ed. Paul Ayris & David Selwyn; Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 5.

12 Alan C. Clifford, ‘Cranmer as Reformer’, Evangelical Quarterly 63/2 (1991): 99–122.

13 Bromiley, Cranmer, 37.

14 Kenneth Brownell, ‘Thomas Cranmer: Compromiser or Strategist?’, in The Reformation of Worship: Papers Read at the 1989 Westminster Conference (London: Westminster Conference, 1989), 3–5.

15 Brownell, ‘Compromiser or Strategist?’, 4.

16 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 71.

17 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 116.

18 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 127.

19 Oliver P. Rafferty, ‘Thomas Cranmer and the Royal Supremacy’, The Heythrop Journal 31 (1990): 129–49.

20 Maurice Elliott, ‘Cranmer’s Attitude to the Monarchy: Royal Absolutism and the Godly Prince’, Churchman 109/3 (1995): 244.

21 Jasper Ridley, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 410.

22 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 116–17.

23 Paul Ayris, ‘God’s Vicegerent and Christ’s Vicar: the Relationship Between the Crown and the Archbishopric of Canterbury, 1533–53’, in Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar (ed. Paul Ayris & David Selwyn; Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 139.

24 Rafferty, ‘Royal Supremacy’, 142–43, 146.

25 Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘Archbishop Cranmer: Concord and Tolerance in a Changing Church’, in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (ed. Ole P. Grell and Bob Scribner; Cambridge: University Press, 1996), 199–215.

26 Null, Doctrine of Repentance

27 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 60–72, 173–236.

28 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 102–15; Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 15–17

29 Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 18

30 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 21–24; Clifford, ‘Reformer’, 110–113.

31 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 19–20; cf Brownell, ‘Compromiser or Strategist?’, 4, whose only explanation is that Cranmer was a ‘soft touch’, too ‘good and decent’ for the ruthless Tudor court.

32 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 249.

33 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 342–43 where Cranmer disputes Vadian’s Zwinglian view of the sacrament.

34 Thomas Cranmer, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (ed. John E. Cox; The Parker Society; Cambridge: University Press, 1844), 374; Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 32–33 dates the change.

35 Bromiley, Cranmer, 44–45.

36 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 181.

37 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 26.

38 Clifford, ‘Reformer’, 106.

39 Elliott, ‘Monarchy’, 242.

40 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 108–15.

41 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 135, 166–69.

42 Brooks, ‘Correspondence’, 9.

43 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 161–65.

44 Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 23.

45 Charles Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion: to Which Is Added a Series of Documents, from A.D. 1536 to A.D. 1615, Together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources (Revised ed.; London: Bell and Daldy, 1859), 245–46.

46 Hardwick, Articles, 247–51.

47 Hardwick, Articles, 252.

48 Hardwick, Articles, 244.

49 Hardwick, Articles, 253–56.

50 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 337–38; see Brooks, ‘Correspondence’, 9.

51 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 185–95; Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 133–34.

52 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 195, 206–7.

53 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 83–114, esp. 106–14; see Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 121–33; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 209–11.

54 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 114.

55 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 196.

56 Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 28–29; Bromiley, Cranmer, 41–42; Clifford, ‘Reformer’, 101.

57 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 345–46; see Brooks, ‘Correspondence’, 9.

58 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 258.

59 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 118–27.

60 Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 29.

61 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 260.

62 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 237.

63 Redworth, ‘Formulation of Policy’, 56–61, quotation from page 60.

64 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 154–55; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 252–53

65 Clifford, ‘Reformer’, 101.

66 Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 157–212.

67 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 412; see Bromiley, Cranmer, 60.

68 Rafferty, ‘Royal Supremacy’, 139–40; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 88–89, 98.

69 Rafferty, ‘Royal Supremacy’, 142; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 158–59.

70 Bromiley, Cranmer, 25; and Maurice Elliott, ‘Cranmer’s Attitude to the Papacy: “And as for the Pope, I Refuse Him as Christ’s Enemy”’, Churchman 109/2 (1995): 134 make similar points.

71 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 101–2, 232–36.

72 Brownell, ‘Compromiser or Strategist?’, 6, 11.

73 Cranmer, Letters and Writings, 246; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 101.

74 Cranmer, Letters and Writings, 246; MacCulloch, ‘Concord and Tolerance’, 205–10.

75 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 232–36.

76 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 135.

77 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 156–57.

78 Cranmer, Letters and Writings, 323–24, 401.

79 MacCulloch, Cranmer, 159.

80 Bromiley, Cranmer, 27–28; Rafferty, ‘Royal Supremacy’, 142; Elliott, Monarchy, 241.

81 Clifford, ‘Reformer’, 101; MacCulloch, Cranmer, 157–58, 268; Brooks, ‘Correspondence’, 10; Bromiley, Cranmer, 51.

82 Redworth, ‘Formulation of Policy’, 47–50; Bromiley, Cranmer, 46–48.

83 Bromiley, Cranmer, 49.

84 so Brownell, ‘Compromiser or Strategist?’, 11–12.

85 so Rafferty, ‘Royal Supremacy’, 146.

86 Hall, ‘Erasmianism and Lutheranism’, 3; Null, Doctrine of Repentance, 213–36.

87 Brownell, ‘Compromiser or Strategist?’, 10.

  • Share/Bookmark
19th November, 2009 | Category: Church History, Justification | One comment so far - ()

Is Anyone Righteous?

From the Sola Panel:

This is a postscript to my biblical word power series, responding to an excellent question from a bloke at my previous church:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 states that there is not a righteous man on earth. Psalm 14 states that there is no one righteous. So why does the Bible say that Noah, David and others were righteous? It seems to be a contradiction.

This is a very deep question, and a complete answer would be much too long! Nevertheless, I think that the definition of righteousness that I’ve provided so far in my series can go a long way to help us answer this question. We saw that:

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

Which standard are we talking about? Well, it depends. What does it depend on? You guessed it: on the context!

Righteousness will mean different things according to the context in which it is used. Whenever you see the word ‘righteous’ in the Bible, a good first question to ask is, “Which standard is being referred to?” You should be able to get a reasonably good idea by looking at the verse itself—or at least by looking at the verses and chapters surrounding the verse. So let’s look at the various uses of the word ‘righteous’ referred to in the quote above.

First, Noah: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:9). The verse itself would suggest that the standard of righteousness is whether a person ‘walks with God’. This makes even more sense when you look at the previous verses, which says that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). In Noah’s day, people had turned away completely from God and were morally wicked; by contrast, Noah walked with God. He was in line with this standard, and so he (in contrast with everyone around him) can be called ‘righteous’. Note that the standard of ‘righteousness’ here is not absolute moral perfection.

Now David: there are a lot of examples here, but let’s go with Psalm 7:8: “The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me” (Ps 7:8). Here, David pleas for justice against his enemies. He claims that he is righteous—that is, he is in line with some moral standards that are particularly important for the king (see Ps 7:4 and Deut 17:14-20). Therefore, he deserves to be rescued. In contrast, his enemies deserve judgement, because they are wicked (Ps 7:9). David isn’t claiming that he is absolutely morally perfect, just that he is (at this point) generally in line with these moral standards.

By contrast, Ecclesiastes 7:20 says: “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins”. This verse is talking about a much bigger and tougher standard: the standard of absolute moral perfection—sinlessness. The claim is that there is nobody who meets this particular standard (a claim that’s backed up by other parts of the Bible, e.g. 1 Kings 8:46, 2 Chronicles 6:36, Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13). There is nobody who is righteous according to the standard of absolute moral perfection.

Psalm 14 is a little bit more complicated. It’s complicated because it doesn’t quite say that nobody at all is righteous (actually Psalm 14:5 presumes that there are some righteous people around!). The standard of righteousness in Psalm 14 is about acknowledging and following God. Psalm 14 seems to be saying that nobody in the nations around Israel is righteous according to this standard, but that there are some ‘righteous’ in Israel who will be rescued because they acknowledge God, follow God, and trust in God’s salvation.

Nevertheless, in Romans 3:10-18, Paul uses bits of Psalm 14 alongside a whole bunch of other Old Testament quotes as part of his overall proof that there is nobody at all who is righteous (including those within Israel after the exile, see Isaiah 59:1-16)! That’s because the standard of righteousness Paul is speaking about at this point in Romans is actually the big, most important standard of all: the standard used in God’s final judgement, where every act and thought will be judged by the holy and perfect God of all (Rom 2:1-16). We’re talking here about ultimate forensic righteousness. According to that standard, nobody (Jew or Gentile) is righteous in themselves. Psalm 14 by itself doesn’t prove this point, but according to Paul, when you see Psalm 14 as part of the Bible’s overall story, the picture adds up that there is no-one who conforms to the ultimate standard. Nobody on earth is righteous. In fact, even in Israel, no-one is righteous. No-one at all is righteous.

And that’s why, in the final and ultimate sense, you and I (and Noah and Abraham and David) need Jesus, the only truly righteous man according to God’s ultimate standards, who provides justification through atonement and whose righteousness is imputed to us.

I hope that goes some way towards answering this huge question!

Comment on the Sola Panel
  • Share/Bookmark
19th October, 2009 | Category: Biblical theology, Justification, Sola Panel |

Improve your theological word power: Imputation

On the Sola Panel:

Today we are going to conclude our series on biblical word power with something slightly different: a brief introduction to imputation. ‘Imputation’ is not actually a word used in the Bible. Nevertheless, imputation is still a very important word, because it can help us to plumb the depths of the issues surrounding the Bible’s use of words like ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’, which we looked at in previous posts.

(Apologies to those who, like James, were hoping for a speedier conclusion to this series. As Sandy kindly noted, I’ve just moved to England with my family and so have been a bit too preoccupied to write!).

The issue: How can God justify the wicked?

If you’ve been following this series, you’ll notice that there seems to be a contradiction in the way that the Bible uses the closely related words ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’.

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

In particular in the forensic (law court) context,

Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.

The job of the law court is to examine an individual and then declare whether that individual is in line with particular legal and/or moral standards. If the court finds that the individual is indeed righteous, then the court ‘justifies’ that individual:

To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a forensic context, i.e. a law court).

The same is true, in an ultimate and cosmic sense, of God’s law court. God acts as judge of each individual, whom he has created. If God finds that the individual is in line with God’s own created moral standards, then God justifies that individual. If not, he condemns them.

However, we saw in my previous post that God can and does justify (i.e. declare righteous) people who are not actually righteous (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Pet 3:18; Rom 4:5). He does this somehow because of atonement—atonement ultimately through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom 3:25-26). How can he do that?

The answer: Imputation

The answer is imputation. The concept of imputation was especially championed by the 16th-century reformers and their successors. But imputation is not just a 16th-century creation; imputation arises naturally from the biblical understanding of righteousness and justification. What is imputation?

Imputation = when God treats Christ’s righteousness as if it were my righteousness.

Imputation is the way that God can justify me. In his role as judge of the world, God examines me to determine if I am righteous (i.e. in line with his created moral standards). This is a problem for me (and you!), since I am not in line with his standards; I have sinned. So by rights, I should be condemned, not justified. But instead, God treats Christ’s righteousness as if it were mine. And so God justifies me (i.e. God declares that I am indeed righteous). This is the heart of imputation.

Imputation and union with Christ

The obvious criticism of imputation is that it sounds like ‘legal fiction’. How can God justify me on the basis of somebody else’s righteousness, and still remain a righteous judge?

Well, there are two excellent and closely connected answers to this objection.

Firstly, God can justify me because of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. In Christ, my unrighteousness has already been condemned. My sin, and God’s righteous anger against my sin, has been dealt with (Rom 3:25-26). There is now no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1-4).

Secondly, God can treat Christ’s righteousness as if it were mine because I am intimately connected with Christ through faith (e.g. Galat 2:20; Rom 3:26). As I trust in Jesus, and particularly in his death and resurrection, I become united to him through faith. And so God can justly impute Christ’s righteousness to me.

The reformer Martin Luther compared this idea to the way in which husband and wife share each other’s possessions and status. Because I am united to Christ, Christ takes my sin on himself, and I share his righteousness as my own possession.1

Calvin writes about imputation too, describing it as a “fellowship of righteousness”:

We do not, therefore, contemplate him [i.e. Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.10)

Questions about imputation

This post is only an introduction to the concept of imputation. There are lots of questions that we don’t have space or time to enter into. For example, what exactly is Christ’s righteousness? And how is it related to God’s righteousness?

These aren’t necessarily easy questions. But we need to realize that these questions about imputation are not just a matter of idle speculation; they are biblically based questions—questions that arise naturally from the way the Bible speaks about righteousness and justification. And we should expect that the more we consider such questions with the Bible open, and the more we take the Bible’s insights to heart, the more we will be able to know and love God for who he is and what he has done for us in Christ.

1 Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, edited by Timothy F Lull, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pp. 600-604.

Comments on the original article
  • Share/Bookmark
30th September, 2009 | Category: Justification, Sola Panel |

Using your biblical word power: Justification through Atonement

From the Sola Panel:

Today we’re continuing the series on biblical word power. This time we will seek to use what we have learned about the meaning of some important biblical words, so that we can come to grips with a very significant story told by Jesus.

Definitions

To recap our key biblical definitions:

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.

To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a forensic context, i.e. a law court).

Atonement = dealing with any obstacle to a relationship, especially between God and human beings.

Two kinds of prayer in the temple

We’ll get to Jesus’ parable in a moment. But first let’s go back to Solomon, the man who built the temple in Jerusalem about 1,000 years before Jesus. Solomon prayed a very significant prayer at the dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:14-42, see also 1 Kings 8:22-53).

Solomon begins by acknowledging that God truly dwells in heaven. Yet God has graciously put his presence in this particular temple and particularly listens to people who pray in that place (2 Chronicles 6:18-21).

What kinds of prayers does Solomon envisage will be prayed in the temple?

The first kind of prayer is a prayer for justification of individuals. The temple acts as God’s heavenly law court on earth. At the temple, people can pray to God in heaven and ask for justification. Because God is a righteous judge, he justifies the righteous, and condemns wicked sinners (2 Chronicles 6:22-23).

The second kind of prayer is a prayer for atonement. The temple is the key place where the obstacles to the relationship between people and God (i.e. the people’s sin and God’s wrath) are dealt with. When sinful people pray and ask for atonement, God grants atonement. Atonement can take place both for Israel as a whole (2 Chronicles 6:24-40) and for individuals (e.g. 2 Chronicles 6:29).

Two men who go up to the temple to pray

Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) is a parable about two men who go up to the temple to pray (Luke 18:10) – clearly Jesus wants us to remember the two kinds of prayer that Solomon spoke about at the dedication of the temple (see above).

One of the men, the Pharisee, prays a prayer for justification (Luke 18:10-12). The Pharisee states that he, unlike others, is in line with certain moral and legal standards (Luke 18:11-12). That is, he states the case for his own righteousness before the heavenly court. Clearly, he is expecting that God in heaven will justify him (i.e. acknowledge that he is indeed righteous).

The other man, the tax collector, prays the other kind of temple-prayer – a prayer for atonement. It is a simple, humble prayer:

God, be merciful to me, a sinner! (Luke 18:13b)

(NB The word he uses is the technical word for atonement, often used in the temple-context in the Old Testament).

Yet there is a surprising twist. The Pharisee, who pleads his case for his own righteousness, is not justified – i.e. God does not declare that he is righteous. But the tax-collector, the sinner, who simply asks for atonement, is justified. The man who is expecting justification on the basis of his righteousness, doesn’t get it. But the man who asks for atonement receives both atonement and justification before God!

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 18:14)

What’s happening here? If we look back at the start of the parable, we get a clue. The issue Jesus is dealing with is “self-righteousness”. Jesus is telling the parable to people who were confident that they were righteous on the basis of themselves (Luke 18:9).

The implication is that there is another basis for justification, other than our own moral or legal righteousness! Somehow, God, in his heavenly lawcourt, can look at a sinner who has asked for atonement, and declare that this sinner is indeed righteous. But that same God in that same heavenly lawcourt can look at another man who claims to be righteous (i.e. in line with legal and moral standards), and yet not make the declaration that he is righteous at all!

Justification and atonement

What is happening? It is a radical concept. Jesus in this parable brings together the two activities of the temple: justification and atonement. Indeed, Jesus is claiming that justification happens through atonement!

This teaching about justification isn’t unique to Jesus. We can see the same idea in other parts of the Bible. For example, in Isaiah’s prophecy, the sin-bearing atoning sacrifice of the Servant brings justification to many (Isaiah 53:11). The apostle Paul also brings justification and atonement together, claiming that a person is justified because Jesus Christ was presented as an atonement (Romans 3:25-26).

Plumbing the depths

How can this be? How can God declare that a sinner, who is clearly not in line with God’s moral standards, is in indeed in line with his standards? Next time we’ll explore this idea in more depth, seeing how this question is wonderfully resolved.

  • Share/Bookmark
11th August, 2009 | Category: Atonement, Justification, Sola Panel |

Improve your biblical word power 3: Justification

On the Sola Panel:

This post is the third in a series designed to help you to get to know and love some of the important words used in the Bible. Today we’ll learn the basic meaning of the word ‘justification’.

To recap

In the first post, we saw that,

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

In the second post, we saw that there is a particularly important context in which the word ‘righteousness’ appears: the law court. In this ‘forensic’ context,

Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.

Righteousness of a judge = making decisions in line with legal and/or moral standards.

Justification

The word ‘justification’ is very closely related to ‘righteousness’ in the forensic context. In fact, in the original Hebrew and Greek languages (in which the Bible was written), the word for ‘justification’ has the same basic root as the words for ‘righteousness’.

The word translated ‘to justify’, ‘justification’ and ‘justified’ occur almost exclusively in the forensic (law court) context in the Bible. Here’s what it means:

To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a law court).

While righteousness (or unrighteousness) is generally a quality the defendant possesses upon entry to the law court, ‘justification’ is an action that happens in the law court itself.

The job of the law court is to examine the defendant, to compare the evidence of their behaviour against the righteous standards of the law (which are based upon the moral created order established by God himself), and then to determine whether or not the defendant has acted in such a way as to show that he or she is in line with those standards. If the defendant, on the basis of evidence, is deemed to have indeed been righteous, then the judge ‘justifies’ them—that is, the judge declares that they are righteous. If not, then the judge ‘condemns’ them.

Here’s an example:

If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting [literally ‘justifying’] the innocent [literally ‘righteous’] and condemning the guilty … (Deut 25:1)

God’s justification versus human justification

However, human law courts are not perfect. Sometimes the judges themselves are unrighteous, and so make false judgements. It is possible, therefore, for a human law court to justify a person who is not righteous—that is, to declare that somebody is righteous when they are not righteous at all (e.g. Prov 17:15, Isa 5:23).

In contrast, God is a righteous judge. God hates those who justify the wicked and condemn the righteous. God himself never justifies the wicked:

You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit [literally ‘justify’] the wicked. (Exod 23:6-7)

In fact, God’s justification of the righteous is one of the key activities that take place in the temple in Jerusalem. In the Old Testament, we see God’s heavenly law court ‘coming to earth’ in the temple:

If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, then hear from heaven and act and judge your servants, repaying the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating [literally: ‘justifying’] the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness. (2 Chron 6:22-23)

Summary

Here’s the definition again:

To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a law court).

Errors

Just briefly, here are two fundamental errors that have occurred in understanding the biblical word ‘justification’.

One serious error, made by many theologians in both the medieval Catholic church and also the modern Roman Catholic church, is to assert that ‘to justify’ means ‘to make righteous’ rather than ‘to declare righteous’. On this understanding, justification is a process that takes place in the life of a person, conforming the person to God’s moral standards over a period of time. It was one of the great rediscoveries of the Reformation that justification means ‘to declare righteous’ in the forensic context, not ‘to make righteous’.

A number of modern writers make a different error. They will agree that ‘to justify’ means ‘to declare righteous’. However, they use a different definition of the term ‘righteous’. Tom Wright, for example, claims that in Galatians, ‘righteousness’ really means ‘membership of God’s family’, not ‘being in line with a legal and/or moral standard’, as we saw in the previous post. This profoundly affects his definition of ‘justification’, which, he claims, really means to ‘receive the verdict “member of the family”’.1 As a result, Wright’s theology of justification shows less interest in the moral standing of creature before creator, and becomes anchored instead in what he sees as being a more fundamental concept—the human community of God’s covenant people. The key problem with this move is that ‘righteous’ does not mean ‘family member’, but rather ‘in line with a standard’—and in the forensic context of justification, the standards in view are the moral standards of the created order.

But there’s more…

Keen Bible readers will, of course, realize that there is more to be said about justification. In this post, we have simply examined the basic meaning of the word ‘justification’. It is important to understand this basic biblical meaning as we read how the word was used by Jesus and Paul—in what, at first glance, seem to be very surprising ways! In a future post, we will return to the temple to see how forensic justification is shaped by another fundamental biblical concept: atonement.

  • Share/Bookmark
28th July, 2009 | Category: Justification, Sola Panel |

Improve your biblical word power 2: Forensic righteousness

From the Sola Panel:

This post is the second in a series designed to help you to get to know and love some of the important words used in the Bible. Today we’ll clarify the meaning of ‘forensic’, and then look at what ‘righteousness’ means in the forensic setting.

To recap

This post assumes that you’ve read and understood the first post. Here’s a summary:

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

Now what does ‘forensic’ mean? Technically,

Forensic = relating to a law court.

Forensic

At this point, there’s a bit of confusion. There’s a more popular use of the word ‘forensic’, which you’ll see on TV shows like CSI. On these shows, the word ‘forensic’ is actually a shorthand for ‘forensic medicine’ or ‘forensic science’. The ‘forensics’ team is the group of scientists or medical experts who conduct their scientific or medical work for the purpose of presenting evidence in court. But technically, everybody in the court is ‘forensic’ because they’re all related to the law court—the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant, the jury, and so on. And it’s this more technical definition of ‘forensic’ that is used when talking about the Bible.

Law courts

In the Bible, the word ‘righteousness’ often appears in a forensic context—that is, the context of a law court.

As an aside, righteousness is not always ‘forensic’. For example, the book of Proverbs is full of references to the ‘righteous’ man, whose is called ‘righteous’ simply because he lives in line with God’s created moral standards (e.g. Proverbs 10:32).

However, the law court setting appears in the Bible whenever a person’s righteousness is called into question. The job of the court is to determine, in a specific instance, whether or not the defendant has been ‘righteous’ (often translated as ‘innocent’). The court must ask the question, “Is this person in line with proper standards?” The standards the court uses are legal standards, but these legal standards are supposed to be based on the righteous moral standards that God has set up in the creation itself.

This is true of a human court—for example,

If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent [literally, ‘righteous’] and condemning the guilty … (Deut 25:1)

A judge is said to be ‘righteous’ when he judges properly, according to righteous moral standards, and doesn’t take bribes or act with prejudice to the rich (e.g. Deut 1:16, 16:18).

Summary

To summarize, here’s what forensic righteousness means:

Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.

Righteousness of a judge = making decisions in line with legal and/or moral standards.

Significantly, the Bible often speaks about a specific but extremely important forensic context: the law court of God. There is a heavenly law court, before which each individual in creation must stand. When God acts to set the world to rights, he primarily does so by acting as a righteous judge of individuals (e.g. Gen 18:25, 1 Kgs 8:32, Psa 1:5-6, Isa 51:5, etc.), who passes judgement in perfect agreement with his own righteous standards, and who carries our his sentences righteously, without fear of favour of man. As the Bible continues, we see that this task of righteous judgement is delegated to God’s perfect future king (Isa 11:4).

Errors

We’ll finish with a couple of examples of errors that can crop up when speaking about forensic righteousness.

Firstly, there is the error of saying too much. John Piper, for example, in his otherwise excellent and very insightful book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, when speaking about forensic passages in Romans, says, “the deepest meaning of God’s righteousness is his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory” (p. 68).

I can see why John Piper might say this. God’s righteousness is inextricably caught up with God’s glory; God’s glory demands that he act righteously; indeed, God’s righteousness is a (if not the) key means by which God acts for the sake of his own glory. But it’s not actually what the word ‘righteousness’ means. God’s righteousness—particularly in the forensic context—is his commitment to setting the world to rights—primarily by judging individuals perfectly according to his created standards of righteousness.

But secondly, there is the error of saying too little. Tom Wright, in a response to John Piper’s response,1 speaks about the defendant’s righteousness as merely a status granted to him or her by the court:

‘Righteousness’ within the law court setting … denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favour. Notice, it does not denote, within that all-important law court context, “the moral character they are then assumed to have”, or “the moral behaviour they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.” (p. 69)

According to Wright, righteousness is not something that a person brings to the law court; it’s simply a status conferred by the court. As we have seen, this just doesn’t fit with the biblical use of the word. According to the biblical understanding, a righteous person is righteous before he or she comes to the court; and this righteousness is indeed related to the person’s moral character. The job of the court is not to ‘confer’ a status of righteousness on the person; it is to work out whether the person is, indeed, righteous, and then declare its finding.

Next time we’ll examine the meaning of a closely related word that appears in the forensic context: ‘justification’.

  • Share/Bookmark
17th July, 2009 | Category: Justification, Sola Panel |

Improve your biblical word power 1: Righteousness

From the Sola Panel:

This post is the first in a series designed to help you to get to know and love some of the important words used in the Bible so that you can be more precise as you seek to know God and talk about him.

Comments

A couple of initial comments about this series:

  1. I’m not writing the series to encourage pedantic nitpicking! Nevertheless, we should aim to be precise in our language, especially when we’re talking about important topics relating to God and our relationship with him. Why?
    1. It’s because the more we think and speak about God the way the Bible does, the more we’ll be able to know the God of the Bible (as opposed to the God of our own imagining).
    2. If we can agree on basic definitions of words, it will enable us to have more fruitful discussions about these important topics, without having to constantly clarify and correct misunderstandings or red herrings.
    3. It will help us to identify false teaching more accurately.
  2. Each post is designed to build on the previous one. I’ll give a basic description of the word’s meaning, followed by a brief discussion. My hope is that people will take a bit of time to remember and learn the description each time one of these posts appears.

Our first word: Righteousness

Today I’d like to begin with a very important word: righteousness. What is ‘righteousness’ (or, ‘being righteous’), according to the Bible? The word is used with different nuances in lots of different contexts, but there is a basic meaning that is common to all those contexts:

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

(Note: This definition is the bit I hope you can learn off by heart).

That sounds pretty simple, right? But there’s a little trick to keep in mind—something that makes things a bit more complex, especially for us English-speakers: the same underlying root word (‘righteous’/‘righteousness’) in the original languages can be translated in our English Bibles with different words, such as ‘just’, ‘justice’, ‘fair’, ‘innocent’, ‘upright’, ‘equity’, etc. These different English words are, quite rightly, chosen by translators to suit different contexts. But the underlying original Hebrew or Greek root is the same in all cases. And the basic concept of ‘being in line with a standard’ is present in all cases as well.

What different standards are on view when the Bible uses the word ‘righteousness’? In the marketplace, for example, weights and measures can be called ‘righteous’ when they are in line with the proper accepted standard for buying and selling:

You shall have just [‘righteous’] balances, just [‘righteous’] weights, a just [‘righteous’] ephah, and a just [‘righteous’] hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. (Lev 19:36)

When the word applies to human beings or their actions, it’s often referring to a moral/ethical standard. Human beings are ‘righteous’ when they act in a morally correct way. For example:

He [Saul] said to David, “You are more righteous than I, for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil.” (1 Sam 24:17)

When the word applies to God, it’s often talking about God acting in line with his own character as creator of moral standards and judge of those same moral standards. When God acts ‘righteously’, he sets the world to rights. For example:

… let the field exult, and everything in it!
Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy
before the Lord, for he comes,
for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness,
and the peoples in his faithfulness.

(Psa 96:12-13)

And that’s the lesson for today! To repeat the big point,

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

It’s important to realize that, in different contexts, different standards are in view. But next time we will look at a critically important context where ‘righteousness’ appears in the Bible: the courtroom. Stay tuned!

  • Share/Bookmark
5th July, 2009 | Category: Justification, Sola Panel | One comment so far - ()

A key point at which N.T. Wright is just plain wrong

I’m currently reading through Tom Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. He writes lucidly and engagingly, with a grand vision and a ready wit.

However, it’s been frustrating going. Not only does he appear to be consistently misrepresenting his opponents (which is frustrating enough), he also misrepresents the Bible at a key point.

On page 69, speaking particularly about the Hebrew background to the term ‘righteousness’, Wright says:

‘Righteousness’ within the lawcourt setting [. . .] denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favour. Notice, it does not denote, within that all-important lawcourt context, ‘the moral character they are then assumed to have’, or ‘the moral behaviour they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.’

Notice his claim, which is quite central to his entire view of justification. Wright says that when the term ‘righteousness’ (Hebrew root צדק, Greek root δικαιο*) is used in a lawcourt setting in the Old Testament, it doesn’t mean the moral character of the defendant, but it does mean the outcome of the court’s decision, the ‘verdict’.

Now let’s look at a couple of passages in the Old Testament where the lawcourt setting is in view:

If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting (δικαιώσωσιν / הִצדִּיקוּ) the innocent (δικαιον / צַּדִּיק) and condemning the guilty, …

Deuteronomy 25:1

And

If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, then hear from heaven and act and judge your servants, repaying the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating (δικαιῶσαι / הַצדִּיק) the righteous (δικαιον / צַּדִּיק) by rewarding him according to his righteousness (δικαιοσύνη / צְדָקָה).

2 Chronicles 6:22-23

In both of these passages, righteousness within the lawcourt setting most definitely denotes the moral character that a person is assumed to have, i.e. ‘the moral behaviour they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.’ In the second passage, the verdict comes from God himself.

In other words, Tom Wright is plain wrong at this point. Justification and righteousness aren’t merely about the verdict. In these passages (and in others), the verdict of ‘righteousness’ is based on the prior fact of ‘righteosness’, which has a moral character to it.

And this isn’t just a minor oversight or a side issue. This point is a key plank in argument for his view of justification (which I don’t have time to go into here). Wright is claiming that his own view of ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’ is properly based in biblical exegesis of the actual terms themselves, whilst his opponents are importing unbiblical views into their theological understanding.

I wrote about N. T. Wright a few years back, and from reading his latest book, so far I’ve seen very little to change my view of where he’s coming from.

  • Share/Bookmark
15th June, 2009 | Category: Justification, Paul | 2 comments - be the next! - ()
 
  Older Entries »