The Roots of Reformed Moral Theology
Written by Bruce P. Baugus |
Friday, October 14, 2022
Reformed moral theology is distinct from other strands of moral theology in its ecclesial context. That context is bounded by confessional standards and corresponding practices. At the same time, Reformed moral theology is a catholic tradition that is deeply rooted in the prior tradition, a tradition it shares with other branches of the church today. And this tradition is receiving new scholarly attention just when Reformed churches need renewed moral clarity, confidence, and courage.
If moral theology is the systematic explication of the moral law revealed in Scripture and application of it to contemporary life, then Reformed moral theology is moral theology developed along the lines and within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy. As such, Reformed moral theology is a further development of the ancient and catholic tradition of moral theology inherited by the Reformers and their post-Reformation heirs. Reformed moral instruction is both deeply rooted in the prior theological tradition and also distinctly Reformed.
A Deeply Rooted Tree
Reformed moral theology developed around a set of widely shared principles and themes. Among them are the use of Scripture as the primary source of moral instruction; the universal and transcendent character of the moral order; the relation of the moral order to the created order; the distinction between the moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects of the Mosaic law; the priority of the Decalogue, divided into two tables, as a summary of the moral law; the relation of the two tables of the Decalogue to the two greatest commandments concerning love for God and neighbor; and the correlation of moral law to virtue more broadly. None of these are original to Reformed theologians.
Inherited Principles and Themes
Take, for example, the relation of the moral order to the created order. Recent scholarship has highlighted the place of the natural law in Reformed moral teaching in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. Stephen J. Grabill, for instance, argues that Reformed theologians prior to 1750 “not only inherited but also passed on the doctrines of lex naturalis and cognitio Dei naturalis, especially the idea of an implanted knowledge of morality, as noncontroversial legacies of patristic and medieval thought.”[1] Similarly, David VanDrunen contends that “for the better part of four centuries Reformed thinkers widely affirmed… natural law.”[2]
Both authors tell essentially the same story about natural law in the Reformed tradition—a story supported by numerous translated or republished primary sources available to English readers.[3] Reformed theologians received and modified the natural law tradition they inherited from medieval theology. They were not uncritical in doing so, but concluded Scripture taught what we might regard as a natural law moral ontology and a modified natural law epistemology. They developed their moral teaching along these lines and carried the natural law tradition forward and passed it down to their theological heirs.[4]
The natural law tradition is a significant strand of theological continuity between Reformed moral theology, prior to the Enlightenment, and early and medieval Christian moral teaching. This is, in other words, one historical root of Reformed moral theology. There are, however, many other roots or lines of theological continuity to be traced. Some of these lines—the other principles and themes noted above, for starters—are at least as important to the structure and content of Reformed moral theology as natural law.
Reformed theologians were not the first theologians in the history of the church to take love for God and neighbor as their basic moral principle or to view the moral law as an elaboration of such love. Neither were they the first to isolate a perpetual moral law from provisional ceremonial and juridical laws in the Mosaic legislation, to describe multiple uses of the moral law, to expound the Decalogue as a comprehensive summary of it, or to relate it to virtues and vices.
-
Faith or Repentance—Which Comes First?
True faith is grounded in Christ’s work alone, not in anything we do. Yet, let me be clear: there is no pardon of sins without repentance (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). Repentance proceeds from faith; it does not precede faith. The cause of our pardon is Christ through faith. If repentance preceded faith, then our work of repentance would seem to be part of the ground for God to pardon us, which Scripture doesn’t teach.
The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance. — John Murray,Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 119.
Repentance is a critical teaching of the Word of God. We are called to proclaim it in the name of Christ Jesus everywhere (Luke 24:47). Yet a question arises: must people repent of their sins and show a changed behavior, that is a changed life, before God grants justifying faith—faith that is the instrument by which God reconciles a sinful person to himself? Or does repentance follow faith? Which comes first—faith or repentance? And how do we know?
How Should We Define Repentance and Faith?
The Westminster Shorter Catechism has a helpful, biblically-based definition of repentance:
87. What is repentance unto life?
Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
The Heidelberg Catechism gives a good biblical definition of true faith:
Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
Repentance is turning from sin to obedience. Internally, it is a hatred of sin and a motivation to live in gratitude and love by obeying God’s commands. Externally it is changed conduct. Saving faith is a gift of God in our hearts leading us to trust him alone for our forgiveness, righteousness, and salvation, only because of what Christ has done for us.
So, which comes first—faith or repentance? The answer is faith precedes repentance; it is a fruit of saving faith—not the other way around. A person is reconciled to God (justified) by faith alone, not by faith plus works. Yet, faith without repentance is not saving faith. Let me explain by considering what the Bible teaches.
The Bible Contains Various Passages regarding the Need for Repentance
The book of Acts records examples of the apostolic call to repent, believe, and be baptized; the call goes out in various combinations and order. In Acts 2:38,
Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Institutionalizing Systemic Antiracism Racism
Written by David Richardson and Ray M. Sanchez |
Tuesday, May 10, 2022
Parents, students, faculty, and staff long silent on issues of education and the creeping influence of identity politics into their schools and curriculum are beginning to speak out. They are beginning to challenge the wisdom of handing students over to an unaccountable bureaucracy committed to turning out junior activists as opposed to burgeoning scholars.The educational bureaucracies from the state level down to local school boards, including community college boards of trustees, are rushing to implement administrative regulations and board policies, as well as approve curricular changes, that will normalize antiracist and gender identity politics in our education systems for years and perhaps generations to come. The sudden rush to augment and cement these ideas in ways that will be practically impossible to dislodge from our institutions should give us pause to ask: “Why now and why so intensely?
As “flyover country”—as it is disparagingly referred to by the coastal progressive elites—begins to wake up to the fact that education at all levels has been embracing an ideology steeped in racial and social division, the political and cultural leaders of these movements, who have used them to attain considerable administrative and political power, are desperate to enshrine them.
A primary goal of the recent rush to make these administrative policies permanent is to ensure that institutions hire the right instructors or that skeptical instructors will be forced to bow down and pay homage. The basic idea is to embed race and intersectionality so deeply into the “culture” of education that the only way to get rid of it is to dismantle the institutions themselves, something the masters of education don’t believe flyover country is willing or able to do.
So, for all of flyover country that has yet to wake up, here is what our educational institutions look like presently, from our view:
School mission and vision statements no longer emphasize education as the primary goal. Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) have replaced education or student learning as the greatest possible good. Creating students that are antiracist activists is more important than teaching students how to think critically and form their own opinions about the world. Grading equitably is more important than helping students master subject matter. Offices and vice presidents of DIE rank ahead and get more funding than offices of instruction or student services. Every dollar allocated, every decision made, and every grade given is viewed through a lens of how it best serves the activist agenda.
This “work” has been going on for a number of years even decades at this point, but as middle America begins to push back, the sense of urgency to institutionalize this agenda has increased, especially here in California. While California may seem like an unassailable bastion of social justice ideology and politics, cracks have started to appear even here.
Read More
Related Posts: -
3 Things You Should Know about Luke’s Gospel
Jesus embodies lowly character throughout His life; He was born in the humblest of circumstances (Luke 2:7), lived in the unremarkable town of Nazareth (Luke 4:16), and died an undeserving death for His people (Luke 22:1–23:56). But, on account of Jesus’ faithfulness, God vindicated the Son and exalted Jesus to the Father’s throne (Luke 24:50–53). Believers must take this pattern to heart because God promises that we too will undergo difficult circumstances. We will not be publicly vindicated until our physical resurrection at the consummation. Only in the eternal state will God’s people enjoy an exalted existence.
Luke’s gospel is the longest book in the New Testament and one of the most sophisticated. While most Christians are familiar with the birth of Christ in chapter 2, not many are familiar with some of the nuances of the third gospel that enrich our understanding of the person of Christ. Below we will attempt to carve out three areas that are often overlooked: the purpose of the book, the exaltation of the humble and the humbling of the proud, and Jesus’ relationship to the Old Testament.
1. The purpose of Luke.
New Testament authors don’t often inform the readers why they are writing a letter or gospel. But two of the four Gospels do such a thing. Luke explains to Theophilus in 1:4 that he’s writing to him so “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” While we don’t know much about Theophilus, scholars believe that he was likely a gentile who converted to Judaism and then subsequently to Christianity. Theophilus may have even funded Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts, since publishing in the first century was a costly endeavor. In any case, the point is that Luke writes Theophilus to confirm what Theophilus already knows. It appears, then, that Theophilus is familiar with the broad strokes of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and Luke pens his gospel to fill in the gaps of Theophilus’ knowledge with the purpose of preserving his faith. This is an incredibly important principle, a principle that the church in the twenty-first century must value. One’s knowledge of Christ’s ministry is directly tied to one’s personal faith. When doubt creeps into our hearts, as it inevitably does, we must turn to the Gospels and refresh our minds with the truth of Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection.
2. The exaltation of the humble and the humbling of the proud.
Hymns in the Bible often encapsulate key themes, themes that are woven throughout the book (e.g., Dan. 2:20–23; Dan. 4:1–3, 34–35; Dan. 6:25–27).
Read More
Related Posts:
