Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: “Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” Well up to this point, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that—being "full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting—and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would  have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

Bro. Martin is arguing against a charge that he mistranslated Rm 3.28 by adding in the word ‘alone’ to modify ‘faith’ where it says:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Martin’s point is that in translating, getting the meaning is more important than seeking a word-for-word correspondence. (He also says something to this effect, ‘If the papists don’t like my translation, let them write one of their own.’ He says this in a characteristically Martin-esque way.)

His letter is instructive and something that all of us concerned with the Bible and its translation should bear in mind. And it is entertaining to read at certain points!

quoted by Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100, 399 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943), 389.

“‘Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. ‘Though we,’ he says, ‘or an angel from heaven.’ Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, – if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.”

Vincent of Lerins , “A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies,” in The Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. A. Heurtley, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 8.22.

“Again: Hippolytus refers to the action of the suburbicarian bishops in provincial council. And here is the place to express dissatisfaction with the apologetic tone of some writers, who seem to think Hippolytus too severe, etc. As if, in dealing with such ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing,’ this faithful leader could show himself a true shepherd without emphasis and words of abhorrence. Hippolytus has left to the Church the impress of his character as ‘superlatively sweet and amiable.’ Such was St. John, the beloved disciple; but he was not less a ‘son of thunder.’ Our Divine Master was ‘the Lamb,’ and ‘the Lion;’ the author of the Beatitudes, and the author of those terrific woes; the ‘meek and gentle friend of publicans and sinners,’ and the ‘lash of small cords’ upon the backs of those who made His Father’s house a ‘den of thieves.’ Such was Chrysostom, such was Athanasius, such was St. Paul, and such have ever been the noblest of mankind; tender and considerate, gentle and full of compassion; but not less resolute, in the crises of history, in withstanding iniquity in the persons of arch-enemies of truth, and setting the brand upon their foreheads. Good men, who hate strife, and love study and quiet, and to be friendly with others; men who never permit themselves to indulge a personal enmity, or to resent a personal affront; men who forgive injuries to the last farthing when they only are concerned, – may yet crucify their natures in withstanding evil when they are protecting Christ’s flock, or fulfilling the command to ‘contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.’ What the Christian Church owes to the loving spirit of Hippolytus in the awful emergencies of his times, protecting the poor sheep, and grappling with wolves for their sake, the Last Day will fully declare. But let us who know nothing of such warfare concede nothing, in judging of his spirit, to the spirit of our unbelieving age, which has no censures except for the defenders of truth: -

“‘Eternal smiles its emptiness betray,
As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.’”

A. Cleveland Coxe, “Elucidations on ‘The Refutation of All Heresies’ by Hippolytus,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 5, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 12.

“Justification by faith, I have said, is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. It is vital. It is ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ No system from which it is excluded, can ever be justly regarded as embodying the religion of Christ. It was taught by the apostles, and early ministers, constantly, forcibly, emphatically. It was cherished by the primitive churches as a priceless truth. How can we account for its abandonment by the professed followers of Jesus Christ? There is, I answer, an inherent tendency in human nature, renewed though it may be, to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. The transition is so easy that it can only be prevented by perpetual vigilance. The influence of this propensity the early churches did not very long escape. Among the first of the corruptions they admitted and embraced, was the undue importance which became attached to religious ceremonials. They gradually exalted the rites above the doctrines of Christianity, while both were perverted and misapplied. Baptism, especially, was imagined to possess great and peculiar virtues. Thus justification through grace by faith, was ultimately displaced by justification through grace by baptism. Popery was the result, the doctrine of which, on this subject, is thus expressed by the Council of Trent: — ‘Justification is by means of the sacraments, either originally infused into us, or subsequently increased, or when lost, again restored.’ Thus the Christian world was plunged into darkness, which remained unbroken for a thousand years.”

R. B. C. Howell, Evils of Infant Baptism (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1851), 102-103.

A few points to highlight:

• The inherent tendency to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. A very pernicious trait.
• The first of the corruptions was the undue emphasis attached to religious ceremonials. Desiring the subjective experience more than exercising faith? The charismatic impulse?
• From forms to popery. A slippery slide? The fact that the slippery slide slips slowly doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

He delights in our serving him, not because he is the better for it, but because we shall be.

Huh… so he doesn’t delight in himself for his own glory? Who’d a thunk it?

I thought I’d share the entire footnote with you as well. I’d encourage the preachers in the audience to steal it too. It is well worth preaching.

Here is Newell:

The reason God hates your trust in your ‘good works’ is, that you offer them to Him instead of resting on the all-glorious work of His Son for you at the cross.

Reflect:

• What it cost God to give Christ.
• What it cost Christ to put away sin — your sin, at the cross.
• What honor God has given Him ‘because of the suffering of death.’
• What plans for the future God has arranged through Christ having made peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile ‘things upon the earth and things in the heavens, unto Himself.’

Now, when that uneasiness of conscience on account of which you keep doing ‘dead works,’ you neglect all God is, has done, and desires, for you, and substitute your own uncertain, fearful, trifling notions of ‘works that shall please God.’ You would make God come to your terms, instead of gladly accepting his great salvation and resting in the finished work of Christ.

It is ominously bold presumption, when God is calling all to behold His Lamb, to be found asking God to behold your goodness, your works! ¹

You are saved by works, but not your works! The Works of our Lord Jesus Christ are the saving works.

1. William R. Newell, Romans: verse by verse, p. 143, footnote.

The first volume also reveals the mind of a totally lost man. His conversion comes at the end of the first set of letters, but one has to say that he exhibits the pride and malice of a lost man in all his educated sophistication through the years prior to his conversion.

I’ll not debate the quality of his conversion, certainly he uses terms unfamiliar to us. It is quite clear that a real change took place in his life and he left us with many valuable works as a result.

In one of his letters, he makes an interesting observation about the pleasure of anger.

The pleasure of anger — the gnawing attraction which makes one return again and again to its theme — lies, I believe, in the fact that one feels entirely righteous oneself only when one is angry.

 Then the other person is pure black, and you are pure white. But in real life sanity always returns to break the dream. In fiction you can put absolutely all the right, with no snags or reservations, on the side of the hero (with whom you identify yourself) and all the wrong on the side of the villain. You thus revel in unearned self-righteousness, which wd. be vicious even if it were earned.¹

In light of my message last Sunday afternoon, “How Crucifying the Flesh produces the Fruit of the Spirit,” I thought this an apt quote. Too bad I didn’t see it in time to include it in my message.

The quote is from a letter to his ‘first friend’, Arthur Greeves on January 17, 1931. Lewis’ moment of conscious faith in Christ as the Son of God came on Sept 28, 1931. His conversion is described as a growth of understanding and acceptance of truth, coming first as an acceptance that there is a God, culminating with faith in Christ as described. So though he has not yet expressed conscious faith in Christ, I think he displays growing spiritual insight at this point.

What makes anger so delightful? The other person is all wrong, all black, and you are all right, all white. In effect, you become God, and are justified in your judgement of whomever it is that you rage against. It’s righteous wrath, not just righteous indignation!

It is this lust which makes violent movies so attractive. The movie develops sympathy for the lead character who may be a totally reprehensible individual, then leads you into a campaign of rage against his enemies, who are totally ‘evil’ because they oppose the ‘pure white’ hero.

The only antidote to this is humility of mind, is it not? The fruit of the Spirit which only comes by repentance and faith (crucifying the flesh). We must confess our rage, our wrath, our clamour, our malice, our evil-speaking, and submit heart, soul, and mind to the judgement of the Spirit of God.

Perhaps in our fundamentalist wars we should take a break and think this one over.

1. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol.1, Walter Hooper, ed., pp. 950-951.

The other day, he interviewed Al Mohler on the subject of the changing views of young evangelical types. I think the whole transcript is worth reading, but a few highlights follow:

HH: As you talk with two distinct cohorts, the leadership elites in the Evangelical, with whom you are in daily contact, and your students, what are the reactions in those two groups to the events of November?

AM: Well, I’ll tell you, the older Evangelical leadership is in danger right now of looking really old, and old not just in chronological terms, but more or less, kind of acting as if the game hasn’t changed, as if we’re not looking at a brand new cultural challenge, and a new political reality. And so I would say that the younger Evangelicals that I look at every single day, and they are so deeply committed, so convictional, they’re basically wondering if a lot of the older Evangelical leaders are really looking to the future, or are really just kind of living in the 80s while the 80s are long gone. So I think there’s a crucial credibility issue there.

Hmmm… sound familiar?

It seems that it isn’t just Fundamentalists who are having problems with their young people trusting them.

And how about this:

HH: Let me ask you about a pretty controversial proposition. I’m not sure if I believe it or not. Dispensationalism, in other words, End Times theory, for those who are not in this world. Do you think that’s sapped some of the energy and purposefulness out of the commitment of Christians to politics in the here and now?

AM: Well, I think it’s part of it. I don’t think that’s a ridiculous argument at all. I think if you are focuses on the fact that you are absolutely certain that the Lord’s going to be coming imminently, very soon, and that this age is going to come to a conclusion very soon, then you’re not going to give much to investment in building a culture for the future. And I really think that is a matter of Evangelical concern.

Interesting question, eh? Interesting response, too.

And this:

HH: Last question, Dr. Albert Mohler, and I know you have enormous influence on the younger age cohort, because I know who buys your books, and I’ve seen your students with you, et cetera. So take yourself out of this conversation. Who do young Evangelicals look to that you and I would be comfortable having them look to? Where are they getting their leadership cues from?

AM: Well, oddly enough, it’s pretty diffuse. In areas of their life, they’re going to read everything John Piper writes. They’re going to be out there really looking for the kind of cultural analysis that they might be getting from someone who you and I wouldn’t even know, simply because this is a peer-directed culture. They’re going to be saying are you reading this? Are you reading that? I’m not sure I can come up with a long list of names, because I’ll tell you, it’s not that there are so few, it’s that there are so many. This is a generation that reads a lot, absorbs a lot, thinks a lot, and I think it’s going to take some time before we really have a grasp on who all is influencing them in these ways.

This is right at the end of the interview. I think it is a most interesting question and a more interesting answer. It is most interesting that the young are widely influenced by

1. Peers
2. Diverse people of many persuasions
3. Mohler himself doesn’t quite have a handle on who all these influences are

And as a result he can’t really comment on "Who young Evangelicals look to that you and I would be comfortable having them look to." I read a quote elsewhere this evening that went like this:

"The most marked difference from this country today, nearly sixty years down the slope [from 1939], is the absence of authority."¹

In many subtle ways, this observation is true of all parts of society, including the church. Including the evangelical and the fundamentalist church.

The widespread influence of myriads of voices is thought to be, I think, somehow sophisticated, serious, and appropriate. I am afraid we have too many masters (Jas 3.1), and in so doing, we have none.

May our young people become mastered by the One teacher of the One Book.

1. Woody West, "Decline in Authority … Demise of Democracy" Insight (November 18, 1996): 48, quoted in David L. Larsen, The Company of the Preachers, vol. 2, p. 848.

This line illustrates what I mean:

If we cannot say anything adequately, we can say some things inadequately.

That would be H. Richard Niebuhr in Christ & Culture, a book I do not recommend anyone read unless they are thoroughly schooled in theology. Niebuhr is a slippery character with some keen insight into some things, but with a fundamental uncertainty about who our Lord really is or if he is all the Bible says he is.

But his line seems so appropriate for blogging, don’t you think?