Luther Kissing the Pope's Feet

On October 31st, 1999 the Lutheran World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church signed a document called The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, after many years of ecumenical dialogue on a doctrine essential to the distinction between these two major traditions. For some, this was a time of ecumenical and ecclesiastical success. For others, it was a time of compromise, or even a threat to the essence of the gospel. In either case, it was a step towards differing traditions understanding one another, and finding commonality after centuries of dispute.

Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Dialogues on Justification, ed. David Aune, is a compilation of articles from both Lutheran and Catholic scholars. Some of the articles are responses to one another, and others are dealing with some of the major issues in Pauline studies, especially over the last 30 years of research. The various articles are some of the most balanced, honest, charitable and irenic of any scholarly articles I've ever read. The ecumenical intention is refreshing, not because the writers are seeking compromise but because there is a concerted effort to go back to the biblical text for the basis of Christian theology.

One of the most interesting quotes was Lutheran theologian Michael Root's reference to Luther's quote in his commentary on Galatians: "All we aim for is that the glory of God be preserved and that the righteousness of faith remain pure and sound. Once this has been established, namely that God alone justifies us solely by His grace through Christ, we are willing not only to bear the pope aloft on our hands but also to kiss his feet." Although Luther is likely speaking in hyperbole, we also know what he thought of the pope. These are strong words.

Root's point (and what much of book reiterates) is that distinctives within Lutheran theology, especially over and against Rome, may be eventually unnecessary if dialogue such as the Joint Declaration continues to bring together various traditions. The challenge is seeking common ground, while clinging to the true, biblical gospel - and of course agreeing on the nature of the gospel itself. It's a challenging endeavor, but one worth the fight if ecumencity among Christians across denominations is something to be actually realized.

John Owen Pt 2: One Act of God

John Owen's classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is laborious, arduous, and daunting. His style of writing (I am told by my friend Jon Lamb) belongs to an older age of English prose that began to change significantly not long after the book was published in 1684. Nevertheless it is a fascinating and compelling work on the significance of the Christ's atonement.

What I find to be particularly compelling is Owen's ability to tie all the facets of Christ's atonement into one singular, focused and purposeful work - a work that begins with God's intention for the elect and ends with his finished work for his people. Christ's oblation, intercession, justification, sanctification, calling, glorification and future hope are all facets of the same intention in God to save those for whom he has died. This unifying picture of God's work in Christ raises stirring questions for those who hold to some form of Arminianism and hypothetical Universalism. One question in particular is: Why would Christ suffer on the cross on behalf of sinners, paying for their sins, only to have them suffer again for those same sins in hell? This question implies that Christ's work is efficacious, or it does what it was intended to do. This implication of course is predicated on a view of election in which God specifically chooses, by the mystery of his will and for his glory, those who will inherit eternal life.

I've always had a bent towards Calvinism. I cut my teeth on the John Piper school of theology, embracing an Anabaptist/Radical Reformation view of the sacraments, and a staunch Calvinist view of Soteriology. However, I've always danced the line on whether I was a 4 or 5 point Calvinist. Of course a true Calvinist would say there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, that's an Arminian. And I would see their point. I guess having attended DTS and having been involved in a tradition/movement that expressed a belief in unlimited atonement (drop the L in TULIP), I've always struggled to take a stand on the issue concerning the great question, "For whom did Christ die?"

But Owen's book makes me much less comfortable with the idea of unlimited atonement, specifically because I believe in unconditional election. If God, before the creation of the universe, chose us, sent his Son as the perfect God/Man to suffer and die for our sins, justified us in Christ, adopted us, sanctified, glorified and gave everlasting hope and life to us, then why would he only do part of that for others? In other words, why would God send his Son as the perfect God/Man to suffer and die for the non-elects' sins but do nothing else for them in the aforementioned sentence? Would he not die for those who he elected? Would he not adopt those whom he justified? Why would he die for those he never intended to elect, justify, call, adopt, sanctify and glorify?

The point is this: Embracing unconditional election and understanding God's work in Christ for the sake of lost sinners as one singular, interconnected, intentional work from beginning to end changes the way we think of the atonement. I believe that passages such as 1John 2.2, John 3.16, and 2Pet 3.9 make it difficult to not see God's love for all humankind. But although I don't have time to expound on it, I will say that Owen's arguments for not understanding 'world' 'all' and other seemingly universal words as meaning "every man, woman and child who ever lived, is living now, and ever will live" are compelling, and the opposing view seemingly indefensible.

I have to bring up my friend Jon Lamb again, who always asks, "So what's at stake?" Why does this matter? That part, I'm still figuring out. Often times practical issues as they relate to evangelism are discussed when limited vs unlimited atonement is in question. But hopefully one would not think that embracing limited atonement somehow devalues evangelism. I suppose it could, but it doesn't have to. The truth is that, unless you're a complete Universalist, the atonement in Christian orthodoxy will always be limited to some degree or another. Even an Arminian would admit that some people do not place their personal trust in Christ and thus pay for this sins. What good is Christ's death on their behalf in that case? Unlimited atonement brings me no additional comfort, in fact it's that much more heartbreaking considering that one's sins were paid for, and yet they rejected  the free gift in Christ. Limited atonement (or particular atonement) in fact is comforting, because it says that the work God intended in Christ for his children is one complete work with many facets, initiated before time began, and comes with a promise to be completed, to the glory of God.