Crux sola est nostra theologia
Check out James Clark’s new 3-part piece in the North American Anglican on “The Witness of Beauty.” James offers a truly ecumenical piece, citing Anglican, Reformed, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and even Lutheran theologians such as Mark Mattes. I am honored that he has also made use of some of my work as well in part 2.
James D. K. Clark is a graduate student at Yale Divinity School and the book review editor of the North American Anglican.
Because our bodily presence and trustworthiness are inexorably tied together in human experience, physicality represents a key manner in which humans inculcate fidelity. Physical intimacy within marriage best exemplifies this truth and is especially relevant to our study in light of the biblical motif of YHWH/Christ as the bridegroom to the people of God (Jer. 31:32, Isa. 54:5, Hos. 2:7, Eph. 5). Christians have always rejected pre-marital sex and adultery not only because of the destructive consequences of disease and heartache, but because giving one’s self physically over to one’s spouse is the ultimate pledge of one’s loyalty and fidelity. To give one’s body to another is to give one’s very being. If one gives their very physical being away haphazardly, either for the sake of a pleasant weekend or in an affair, how can ultimate fidelity ever be established?[1] If one gives away his very enfleshed self to anyone who strikes his fancy, nothing will be left over to give to one’s spouse as an ultimate pledge. This is why the explanation that an act of infidelity was “just sex” is never convincing to the wronged partner.
Therefore, bodily self-gift is a necessary means of giving assurance of fidelity to the absolute promise of Christ the bridegroom of the Church. It is not sufficient to treat the sacraments as small, symbolic tokens of love in the manner of a husband who occasionally gives trinkets to his wife.[2] Any relationship may be poorer without gestures like these small gifts, but a marriage is not a marriage in a biblical sense without fleshly consummation and unity (Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31). Through fleshly self-giving one “knows” (yada) one’s spouse, that is, they gain a real participatory knowledge of their very physical being. In the same manner, we can be no more certain of our justification and eternal life than to physically receive the very flesh and blood that was sacrificed for humanity on the cross (1 Cor. 11:26) and raised in anticipation of the general resurrection (Jn. 6:54). There is no ambiguity as to whether or not one is justified by the work of Christ when Christ himself is present and gives believers that same body and blood that was sacrificed for them on the cross. Just as baptism is a proleptic realization of the last judgment, so too paschal feast of the Lord’s Supper is the proleptic realization of the final bridal feast of the Lamb at the end of time (Rev. 19:6-9).
[1] Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997-1999), 2:91-2.
[2] Carl Trueman’s analogy for the sacraments. See: Carl Trueman, Grace Alone: Salvation as a Gift of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 213-4.
From the draft manuscript for Jack D. Kilcrease, Justification by Word (Lexham Press, forthcoming).
Through the perpetual return to baptism the Christian is able to enter the reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection, although this event is historically distant. Thus, a key implication of Luther and the historic Lutheran tradition’s teaching on communicatio idiomatum is that Christ’s humanity is not confined by time and therefore he can make himself available through the promise of the gospel in any era. Herein we again encounter in Luther implicit appropriation of Scripture’s distinction between chronological time and kairological time.[1] Even though Scripture does describe the history of salvation as an orderly development, there is a perichoresis of the ages. God’s kairological time has manifested itself at specific points in chronological history. Nevertheless, the Lord is not bound to the chronological order of history in manifesting his kairological salvation. Hence, the risen Jesus who transcends time makes the eschaton present to the believer at the appointed time of his redemption in baptism in order to actualize God’s electing and justifying purposes. Christ thereby makes it possible to incorporate the believer into eschatological redemption in the present through a return to the kairological event of his baptism, just as baptism is a return to the kairological event of his death and resurrection.
As Oswald Bayer observes: “Luther’s apocalyptic understanding of creation and history opposes modern concepts of progress. For Luther, the only progress is return to one’s baptism, the biographical point of rupture between the old and new worlds. Creation, Fall, redemption, and completion of the world are not sequential advance, one after the other, but perceived in an intertwining of the times.”[2]
In emphasizing the possibility of returning to one’s baptism, Luther responds to the issues that gave rise to the problem of post-baptism sin. This problem in turn generated the Latin doctrines of penance, purgatory, and indulgences which he combated in his early Reformation theology. Like the New Testament and the ante-Nicene Church,[3] Luther saw baptism as the apocalyptic rupture between the old person and new person in Christ.[4]
[1] Elert, The Christian Ethos, 286-9; Paul Tillich, The Interpretation of History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936).
[2] Oswald Bayer, “Martin Luther,” in The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, ed. Carter Lindberg (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 51-2.
[3] See: Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009).
[4] Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, 92-8.
From the draft manuscript for Jack D. Kilcrease, Justification by Word (Lexham Press, forthcoming).
I’m happy to report that the Institute of Lutheran Theology has received a large endowment gift for a scholarship fund. President Dennis Bielfeldt writes that “The Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT) has received a $1,550,000 endowment gift to establish the Kathrine Grosen Memorial Scholarship Fund, a fund dedicated to addressing the growing need for Lutheran pastors in North America. The Kathrine Grosen Memorial Scholarship Fund has been established through a bequest from the estate of Knud Grosen of Great Falls, MT…. The Kathrine Grosen Memorial Scholarship Fund provides academically qualified M.Div. students renewable scholarships after completing 1/3 of their M.Div. program.” Thank you to the Grosen family for your generosity!
For more information on the The Kathrine Grosen Memorial Scholarship Fund contact:
Joel Williams, Director of Enrollment
605-692-9337
Due to the simul of Christian existence (that is, Christians are “at the same time saint and sinner,” simul justus et peccator),[1] the temptation of returning to the self-incurvature of reflective faith is ever present. That is to say, because even true believers now possess a sinful nature, they are subject to the temptation trusting in their own works or the quality of their faith over what the external Word tells them. Such a temptation connects with not only the root sin of unbelief, but what Luther called “Enthusiasm.”[2] Enthusiasm means “God withinism.”[3] An enthusiast looks inward to his interior thoughts and feeling so as to discover God’s will for him, rather than the external Word of God. This tendency can undermine biblical authority, but it is also the source of human doubt in the promise of the gospel.
Because of fallen humanity’s orientation toward unbelief and enthusiasm (incurvatus in se) temptation to doubt one’s own proper reception of the word will invariably arise. When temptation arises, faith in the Word must inevitably seek a secondary support in refocusing the believer on the objectivity of grace rather than the subjectivity of their own disposition. Such a secondary support should inculcate the objectivity of grace to the individual believer in a tangible manner and break the focus of the believer on their own inner reception of the external word. This secondary support for faith can be found in the sacraments of the new testament.
Disappointingly, most forms of Protestantism have failed to maintain the focus believer on Christ and the Word because of their rejection of sacramental realism. Indeed, most (though not all) Protestants rejected sacramental realism in favor of sacramental symbolicism or spiritualism.[4] Since both sacramental symbolicism and spiritualism disconnect the res from the signum in the sacraments, much of the Protestant tradition has denied believers the tangible secondary assurance of God’s grace that sacramental realism provides. Believers who reject sacramental realism therefore have had to seek secondary assurance apart from the sacraments in moral athleticism or spiritual experience, thereby exacerbating the problem of unbelief and self-incurvature. Only if the sacraments objectively contain grace can they function as antidote to religious subjectivism. They perform this task by shifting the focus away from the interior and spiritual reception of grace, to grace’s tangible external embodiment in a physical medium.
[1] See: Wilhelm Christe, Gerechte Sünder: eine Untersuchung zu Martin Luthers “Simul iustus et peccator” (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2014).
[2] SA III.8; Concordia Triglotta, 497.
[3] Steven Paulson, Luther’s Outlaw God: Hidden in the Cross, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 350.
[4] See discussion in: James F. White, The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999).
From the draft manuscript for Jack D. Kilcrease, Justification by Word (Lexham Press, forthcoming).