Cranmer, Calvin, and a Godly Synod.

Just a brief post today, as I wanted to share a quotation which I stumbled across on Facebook.

It details part of an ongoing conversation between Thomas Cranmer - Archbishop and architect of the English Reformation - and John Calvin - famous for inventing Calvinism, which is not really true - concerning a 'godly synod' intended to oppose the Roman Catholic Council of Trent.

Here is the quotation (from Cranmer to Calvin):

"As nothing is more destructive to the church than heresies and disputes respecting the doctrines of religion, so nothing is more efficacious in gathering together the churches of God, or more powerfully strengthens the flock of Christ, than the uncorrupted doctrine of the gospel and agreement in opinion. Wherefore I have often desired, and still do desire, that learned and pious men who pass others in learning and judgment, should meet in some place free from danger, where by mutual deliberations and comparison of their opinions, they might consider all the points of ecclesiastical doctrine, so that by weighty authority they might hand down to posterity a work, not only rightly setting forth the doctrines themselves, but also the manner in which they should be expressed. Our adversaries now hold a council at Trent, endeavouring to establish errors, and shall we neglect to hold a godly synod, in which we may refute errors, correct erroneous doctrines, and set forth those things which are true? I am told that they are constructing decrees respecting the worship of the bread — surely we ought to use every means possible, not only to fortify others against this idolatry, but also that we ourselves may agree in doctrine respecting this sacrament. You must be well aware how much the dissensions and varieties of opinions respecting this sacrament of unity, have undermined and shaken the church of God. Although in some places these dissensions now no longer exist, yet I would wish for agreement concerning this doctrine, not only as to the matter itself, but also as to the words and manner of expression. I have now stated my desire, which I have also communicated to Melancthon and to Bullinger, and I entreat you to consider amongst yourselves in what manner such a synod may best be assembled. Farewell. From Lambeth, 20th March, 1552."

Your most beloved brother in Christ, Tm Cantuar."[1] 

[1]  Cranmer, Thomas. Writings of the Rev. Dr. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury and Martyr, 1556. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842. 

Justification by Faith and Our Participation

Today's post grows out of my continued reading of Charles Raith's short, but reasonably dense, book Aquinas and Calvin on Romans: God's Justification and Our Participation. The title, as I am sure you will agree, is quite self explanatory. The work ostensibly moves through Paul's letter to the Romans as a way of discussing Aquinas' and Calvin's different readings of the text. The main two prongs of his argument being: first, Aquinas' position is, in fact, not the same as the "schoolmen" who provoked so much of Calvin's ire; secondly, Calvin's mind-set of competitive causality - that is to say, that human and divine causality are mutually exclusive - is flawed, and circumvented by Aquinas' participatory reading of Paul.

You might not be shocked to read that I disagree with this second point.

You may - depending on how much Aquinas you've read - not be shocked to read that, in many areas, Calvin and Aquinas are in profound agreement; both seeing themselves, in some respects, as heirs of Augustine. Both share the language of election, justification by faith, unmerited grace, &c.

Where, then, is the disagreement?

This is where we enter the discussion - which may seem, to many readers, akin to 'angels dancing on pinheads' - as to the way in which justification by faith 'works', particularly in relation to our longer-term hope of sanctification - that is to say, becoming more like Jesus.

Beginning with Aquinas - for no other reason than he was chronologically first - it is to say that justification, or a right standing before God, begins in God and has its outworking in our faith. Our faith becomes the way in which Christ's righteousness is 'infused' into us. In fine, something of Christ becomes something of us so that we in ourselves are made righteous in and of ourselves. We are made righteous before God in se. Being, therefore, made righteous people Aquinas understands our sanctification to be part of justification, not a second grace.

Moving to Calvin who says that the justification we receive by faith - a faith that, again, begins in the faithfulness of God - is more like a cloak, of sorts. His analogy is that we 'wear' Jesus' righteousness to cover our sinfulness - although we remain in ourselves sinful. This is a righteousness that is extra nos - outside of ourselves. We use the term 'imputed' here to mean 'ascribed'; Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us, we don't become righteous in se. This means, in an almost clinical way, that justification - a right standing before God - and sanctification - becoming more like Jesus - are distinct works of God for the believer.

Hopefully you are still with me - not long to go - I want to explore the implications of these two positions a little further.


Beginning again with Aquinas: because righteousness is 'infused' in us - and because, therefore we are righteous in se - we can do works that are good, in and of, themselves as they come from our transformed and newly righteous will. But - and here is the major downside - it also means that when we sin we damage the righteousness in us. Which - to conclude Aquinas for today - means we must either (1) participate in our salvation by good works, or (2) lose our salvation by sinning.

Things are completely different for Calvin, however. Because, here, we think of righteousness as a 'cloak' that covers us - whilst God slowly does the work of sanctification in us - our works are never good in se. We cannot, therefore participate in, or add to, the righteousness that is extra nos - outside of us, alien, and fully Christ's. The corollary to this is that when we sin - and we do sin - our sin cannot damage our righteousness, because it is not our own righteousness, it is fully Christ's.

This is why I remain convinced by Calvin's reading of Paul. Aquinas' ever repeating pattern of avoiding sin, sinning, restoration, avoiding sin, sinning, restoration, that forms the heartbeat of Thomist morality is alien to the gospel I know - the gospel where Christ came to save sinners. Calvin, conversely, presents Christ as a place to which I might flee; a refuge where I might hide; a righteousness upon which I can fully depend.

Isaiah 61:10 (ESV)

 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord;
    my soul shall exult in my God,
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation;
    he has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress,
    and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

 

Justification by Faith and Baptismal Regeneration

This week, I've been working through a little book on historical theology, particularly how - if at all - we participate in God's work of bringing about justification. This book, which is cited below, inevitably crosses the issue of baptism. This is following a fascinating Formulary Friday post by Tom Woolford over on the Church Society Blog, which concerned a particular phrase in the Book of Common Prayer Baptismal Service:

"seeing now this child is regenerate"

There is much that can be said about the way that Anglican theology has been, and continues in certain quarters, to be shaped by both the over-arching theological themes found in the formularies, and the specific phraseology found that seems to run contrary to the grain of the whole. This conversation, however, is helpful as it allows a vital context for other conversations to take place.

It is in this vital context that I want to explore Calvin's Causal Schema offered contra to the Council of Trent,[1] wherein - leaning on an Aristotelian fourfold division of causality - he argues that the causation in play, concerning justification by faith alone by grace alone, should be understood as follows:

1. The Efficient Cause - The Mercy of God
2. The Meritorious Cause - Christ
3. The Instrumental Cause - Baptism ("the Sacrament of Faith")
4. The Formal Cause - The Righteousness of God (in that he makes us righteous) [2]

Elsewhere Calvin seems to drop baptism as the instrumental cause, focusing solely on faith, our faith, as the instrumental cause by which justification is brought about [3] yet, even there he argues that baptism is conductive to our faith in God. [4] So for Calvin, faith without baptism seems almost unthinkable.

This 'both/and' approach to baptism and faith finds itself expressed within the 39 articles

"Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."[5]

Although the detailed work of presenting a fourfold causal schema is not undertaken here (and rightly not so, as I suspect a strict  aristotelianism cannot be found within the pages of scripture), and yet we see clearly this notion of instrumentality.

However, and here is the crux, "they that receive Baptism rightly".

We are not to infer that this is a point that appertains to the worthiness of the minister; rather I would contend those that receive baptism as a sign and seal of the grace which is given in the elect, are those who receive baptism rightly.