Most of you have probably not heard of Euan Murray. He’s a rugby player (a real man’s sport). He’s a Scotsman. And he’s a Christian. Unlike many Christian athletes he has reversed the trend of playing sports on Sunday.  He used to, but doesn’t any more.

Murray plays rugby at club level for Northampton and at international level for Scotland. This Sunday he will be sitting out the international game between Scotland and France–a game for which he would otherwise have been selected. He won’t be watching it on the TV either – he says “Christ doesn’t want [rugby games] to be played on Sundays”. Read the rest of a remarkable interview with him here.

Euan is an encouragement to British Christians – he’s taken a public stand for the Lord. A few years ago another high profile Christian, British athlete, by the name of Jonathan Edwards (Olympic gold medallist, world record holder) started competing on the Lord’s Day having once made a public stance to the contrary. You can read about Edwards’ apparent apostasy here. Is it wrong to conclude that the first seeds of this rebellion against God were sewn when he changed his mind over competing on the Lord’s Day? God alone knows where the decline began, but its a legitimate question nevertheless.

Pray for Euan Murray (and for Jonathan Edwards!) that he might be kept by our gracious God from turning away from His commitment to Christ by dishonoring the Law of God.  And pray that his witness, small though it may be would be blessed by God.

Following the theme of the last post, I thought I would post another quotation from Vos on the relationship between Union with Christ and Justification.  Same book Shorter Writings, same article Doctrine Of  The Covenant In Reformed Theology, but different page – 256. This, I think, is a much overlooked section in Vos’s writing. I’ll let him speak for himself:

“The Christian knows that he is a party in God’s covenant and as such he has all things and spans at any one moment the whole orbit of grace, both in time and for eternity. By faith he is a member of the covenant, and that faith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive character, which not only points to justification but also to all the benefits which are his in Christ. Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly – only in its connection with justification – for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only the, in turn doe the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which s losable, so that the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The covenant outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous justification, but lyad hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, as his rich and full Messiah.  … Therefore faith may not be confined within the limited circle of one piece of the truth and its gaze fixed on that all the time; it must have in view, freely and broadly, the whole plan of salvation.”

Vos notes the pastoral implications of this position are that “The Lutheran lives as a child who enjoys his father’s smile for the moment; the Reformed believer lives as a man, in whose consciousness the eternal glory of God throws its radiance” (Vos, Shorter Writings, 256).

I was recently pointed to Vos’s Shorter Writings and some of the articles contained therein. The quotation below is taken from the chater “Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” which begins on page 234 of the Shorter Writings.

“The law holds an essentially different place for the Lutherans than for the Reformed. Theoretically both agree in the threefold use of the law … (i.e (1) the law as the rule of civl righteousness; (2) the law as a pedagogue leading to Christ; (3) the law as a rule of life for the regenerate). The difference lies in the fact that the Lutherans ony relate this thid use of the law to the remnants of the old nature of the believer, while the Reformed relate it to the new man, who finds in the law a positive rule of life. This difference comes to light especially in practice. In the Reformed chruches the law is read every Sunday, a usage with which Lutherans apparently are not familiar. It is treated extensively in the Heidelberg Catechism and in Calvin’s Genevan Catechism under the heading of gratitude. Lutheran catechisms deal with the commandments at the beginning; that is to say, the law is considered chiefly as the means to arouse repentance, as pedagogue leading to Christ. The Reformed use it for the same purpose, but its highest and abiding purpose lies elsewhere for them. With reference to man’s knowledge of his misery, the Heidelberg Catechism refers to the law of God only to summarize its main teaching (Q.4) and not to to treat the separate commandments. Only under the teaching on gratitude is each commandment dealt with separately. (Vos, footnote 9, p 255)

Vos clearly differentiates two traditions here, two different trajectories and two different perspectives on the law. For the Lutheran the primary use is as a pedagogue, to arouse repentance. The Reformed (Vos cites both Heidelberg and Calvin) also views it as such, but primarily sees the law from a perspective of redemption, or to use Vos’s language “gratitude”.

To me,  there are three clear manifestations of this more Lutheran perspective in the church today (I speak of “Reformed” and “Presbyterian” churches). First a general degrading of the law in the eyes of the average Chrsistian. For many it seems that law is “something that drove me (past tense) to Christ, but now I am under grace”. The problems here are obvious.   The second problem is that of preaching: if the pedagogical use of the law is at the forefront of preaching, then the law will rarely be presented in any other way. The message from the puplit will be deficient. It will always say “The Law drives you to Christ, the Law drives you to Christ!” This message, though welcome and central (and perhaps we could wish we heard it more often!), is not the whole picture – for Christ himself stated that commandment-keeping was a necessary demonstration of one’s love for Christ. And for Paul, huge chunks of his epistles are given over to the imperatives of the faith. It seems that this must be reflected in our preaching.  The third problem is found in those churches that actually read the law weekly - which practice I would support. How many churches that read the law, immediately follow it with a corporate confession of sin or prayer of confession (again, another practice which is suitable for corporate worship)?  I wonder how many churches read the law from a perspective of gratitude and look to it to refresh and instruct the believer in holy living? I’m guessing, but I would think very few.

Perhaps these three factors (I’m sure there are more) contribute to the widespread apathy towards the Law of God. Vos certainly saw the “highest and abiding purpose” of the law as resting in a response to redemption. So too does the Westminster Confession of Faith. Examine the treatment of the “Of Law of God” and its position in the Confession: after “Of Christ the Mediator” (Ch 8), after the doctrines “Of Effectual Calling” (Ch 10), after “Of Justification” (Ch11), after “Of Repentance Unto Life” (Ch 15) and after “Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation”. Not only its position in the confession, but the chapter’s content also demonstrates this point. Chapter 19:6 of the Confession places the third use of the law in the place of pre-eminence before the pedagogical use.

I’m not advocating an “either … or” position on the law, nor is Vos or the Confession. But the reality of the situation seems that we have slipped, or are slipping into a Lutheran perspective on the Law of God.

When dealing with Calvin on the Sacraments, it has sometimes been said that “what he gives with the one hand, he takes away with the other.” That is to say, some think that Calvin appears to walk a tightrope between the signum (the sign) and the res (what is signified). On account of this he has been accused of espousing a view of the sacraments which supports a virtus operativa position, viz that the sacraments, in and of themselves, have an operative power. they objectively and really convey grace to the recipient. This is contrary to both the Lutheran and Reformed positions, which state that faith must be present in the recipient if the sacraments are to function as a means of grace.  .

But does Calvin hold to such a view? Does he indeed argue that there is an objective conveying of grace regardless of the state of the recipient? Calvin certainly regarded the Sacraments as a means of grace; however, to go to Calvin in order to extract a single statement “proving” this, is to do injustice to him. Over the next few weeks, I will seek to summarize Calvin’s teaching on the Sacraments, as it is found in Institutes Book IV, XIV.

In the first place, you will notice that Calvin defines the nature of a sacrament in PARAGRAPH 1, “Of the Sacraments in General:”

Calvin argues that the sacraments are “akin to preaching the gospel” and provide us with “another help to our faith”.

He defines a sacrament as “an external sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith.” Importantly he does not stop there but continues “and we in turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men”.

Some observations:

If Calvin states that the sacraments “are akin to preaching the gospel” he seems to suggest that the sacraments are no more or less efficacious than the preaching of the Word itself? The Word is preached but there is no uniform response to it. There is however and objective and central activity taking place – God declaring His Word.

Second within his definition of a sacrament, he chooses to situate the appropriate response of the recipient. He states that “we in turn testify of our piety (faith) towards him”. Note he does not state that the sacrament effects piety, but rather piety towards God is a necessary component of the sacrament. (This is similar to his definition of the true church: people commonly misrepresent his position stating that the marks of the true church are preaching of the Word and the faithful administration of the sacraments. But for Calvin, the first mark of the true church is the “Word of God sincerely preached and heard” (IV:1.9). (In case you are wondering, Calvin does hold to the objective meaning of the sign, regardless of whether it is received by faith – we will see this later in IV:14.7. However, Calvin does not have this universal principle of the sacraments in mind here.) When writing concerning the sacraments, part of Calvin’s definition includes the response of faith to the grace of God. It seems to me this is an important starting point.

The University of Cambridge is, this year, celebrating its 800th anniversary. Cambridge University Press (one of the oldest publishing houses in the world) has recently republished a number of 18th and 19th century theological works. You can find the list of publications here.

Don’t get too excited – no long, lost puritan treaties here (those are all tucked away in the college libraries)!  The reprints are really a product of their times dealing mainly with the issue of the relationship between faith and science. So while there might not be too much of value here (remember CUP and The University of Cambridge as a whole, are this year, celebrating the work of Charles Darwin) I’m sure that some of these titles are of use or interest to some folks out there.

Dr Stuart Olyott has  for many years, been a great blessing to Christians in the UK.  His work amongst the churches in Wales, his preaching and conference speaking in the rest of the UK has been of the highest order. So too has his writing.  In preparation for my first sermon series at Geneva OPC (early in the New Year), I have been reading his work on the Epistle to the Ephesians entitled Alive in Christ.

Dr Olyott is known for his clarity of thought and expression, both in his writing and preaching. He is able to express complex theological concepts in a  simple, accessible and often a powerful manner. Simplicity of expression is often mistaken for shallowness of subject matter, but not so with Dr Olyott. Here is some of his commentary on Ephesians as he deals with the idea of being “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph 1:6)

“We have been in a far country, but he has been waiting for us. When we turn to him, he runs to meet us even when we are still a great way off. He throws his arms around us and treats us as dear children. He never hesitates. We approach him with tears, but find that his home is a house of joy. How is it that the just and holy God can give us such a reception? It is because his eternal Son has never disappointed him in any way, and he sees us being in him. He accepts us for Christ’s sake. In our unholiest moments, in the depths of our backsliding, even then the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to our account, and the Father sees us as having no faults. There is no cloud between us and our God, not ever.”

Amen