You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September, 2008.
“And God has sufficiently exhibited himself, both in his being, and his infinite greatness and excellency: and has given us [all mankind] faculties whereby we are plainly discovering his immense superiority to all other beings, in this respect.” Jonathan Edwards, The Nature of True Virtue, p. 23
Earlier in the chapter, Edwards asserts that God is infinitely beautiful, glorious, and excellent; this moral quality necessitating a virtue which consists in consent, agreement, and unity of heart to “being in general”, specified in chapter 2 as God Himself. I’m curious as to whether you would agree with the conclusion Edwards makes, namely that all men are endowed with a natural capacity to “plainly discover” God’s immense superiority? Is there a direct aesthestic link whereby we see into the “beauty” of the Trinity? Or does Reformed theology argue against this notion by demanding that God accommodate himself to mankind via ectypal revelation? Can we know God as God knows God? Or can we only know God in ways suitable to man’s nature?
My last post stimulated some very interesting discussion which I enjoyed thoroughly. A personal thanks to Jonathan, Tim, and BC for helping me to think through this issue more precisely. Still, I think there remains some misunderstanding on both sides. The purpose of my original post on Calvin’s quote was presented so that it might be confirmed that Calvin’s understanding of justification was never separated from his understanding of union. Another way of putting it is that Calvin quite explicitly taught that our legal justification, imputation and all, is rooted in the logically prior existence of the intermediate or secret union of Christ and the believer. The decree of justification, therefore, is not enacted in some kind of soteriological vacuum. The decree of justification, according to Calvin, is “grounded” (in the right sense of the word) in the existence of an already accomplished reality, namely mystical union.
I think to really grasp this issue its absolutely necessary that two particular theologians are understood with thought and clarity: Mark Garcia and Richard Gaffin. If you really want exposure to the view I’m espousing in a much more refined and scholarly way, check out the following:
Dr. Mark Garcia’s 6 extensive lectures on Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the duplex gratia. These lectures have been invaluable to me as I’ve worked through these issues. Even if you don’t agree with Garcia, it still would be helpful to listen and get a big picture of the current controversy.
Richard Gaffin’s two books By Faith and Not by Sight, a short overview of his doctrine of union and its place within current controversies over the NPP, and Resurrection and Redemption, a basic overview of Paul’s soteriology.
Life in Christ: Union With Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology by Dr. Mark Garcia. Garcia did his doctoral studies on this very issue and has provided an extensive and thorough treatise on this subject. This book gets right to the issue, with a huge focus on Calvin’s primary sources. Garcia contends that Calvin’s doctrine of union and its relationship to justification and sanctification diverges in significant respects from the Lutherans. Quite controversial, but I agree.
No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? A review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry by Dr. Mark Garcia. Very fair, balanced, and irenic. It also provides some insight into the differences between WSC and WTS on this issue of union. I think Garcia does a great job of confirming the book’s usefulness, while cautioning against some of its pan-confessional tendencies.
These are just a few resources that have helped as I’ve worked through these difficult issues. Hope you find them useful!
When confronted with revisionist charges against those who embrace the centrality of union with Christ in the ordo salutis, it’s helpful to consult Calvin himself, since Calvin is so important to this issue. Instead of speaking through rhetoric, lets actually consult what the doctors of old have written. Thanks to Jonathan for passing this quote along. Like it or not, Calvin did regard mystical union as the basis for every salvific blessing, including justification.
“I confess that we are deprived of this blessing [justification] until Christ is made ours. Therefore, that joining together of head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts–in short, that mystical union–are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body–in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.” -Inst. 3.11.10
“The central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. That is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. The center of Paul’s soteriology is neither justification by faith nor sanctification, neither the imputation of Christ’s righteousness nor the renewing work of the Spirit. To draw that conclusion, however, is not to de-center justification (or sanctification), as if justification is somehow less important for Paul than the Reformation claims. Justification is supremely important, it is absolutely crucial in Paul’s gospel of salvation (cf. Eph. 1:13). Deny or distort his teaching on justification and that gospel ceases to be gospel; there is no longer saving “good news” for sinners. But no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul’s gospel, in our salvation, as he sees it, there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ. Union with Christ by faith, that is the essence of Paul’s ordo salutis.”
-Richard Gaffin, By Faith Not by Sight
“The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.”
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 452.
Sorry, but this understanding of justification and its relationship with mystical union can only logically conclude in “legal fiction” categories. If mystical union isn’t the foundation upon which legal union is built, then we can speak of a union which somehow takes place apart from Christ. Every salvific blessing we receive in the ordo is derived from our mystical union with Christ (1 Cor. 1:30), including our justification. In this way I’m with Nevin and not Berkhof. Sometimes the thinkers most despised in the Reformed community are actually closer to the theological emphases of the Reformation than those hailed for their fidelity to the Reformation task. I think this is true when we look at guys like Nevin and Berkhof on this issue of union.
“God does not render anything to a man what does not belong to him in fact.” John Williamson Nevin
Thanks to my blogging friend Jonathan for helping me to think through this issue a little more precisely.
Find out here at the Heidelblog.
Here are a few pictures of our first son Calvin, taken a few weeks ago at Angela’s 30 week ultrasound. The first picture is a great shot of Calvin with his hand in front of his face. The last two are pictures of his face. Calvin is due on November 15th. God has been so incredibly gracious to both Angela and I during this entire pregnancy. Continue to pray for us as we prepare for his birth.
Evangelicals are on the lookout for then newest, trendiest, most effective and appealing way to deal with the reality of sin in the life of Christians. The problem is that the proposed cures are just as sick as the disease itself. In other words, we’re attempting to solve the problem of sin by resorting to sinful measures. This is true especially with respect to the liturgical anti-nomianism which characterizes much of modern-day evangelicalism. We’re blinding ourselves through a chaotic search for something more. We’ve forgotten that God’s ways are so much simpler than ours. A sacramental piety presents itself as a cure to the mindless quest of evangelical leaders to find a new and better way of dealing with sin. Nothing less than a confrontation with the living and risen Christ can be powerful enough to subdue and mortify indwelling sin. In this way, holy communion is central to the Christian life and is this very means of confrontation and beatific joy. Baptism also occupies a place of centrality as covenant children are translated from the kingdom of darkness into the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The preached word occupies centrality as ordained ministers of the gospel function as messengers of God himself. Words, bread, and wine, however simple and despised, are the divine solution to the confusion ushered in by the evangelical (read modern, enlightenment, pseudo-Cartesian, utilitarian) mind. If we would take a minute to examine the Scriptures, looking for God’s prescribed means of mortification and godliness, we might just witness a resurgence of genuine Christian piety in an evil and adulterous generation.
Here’s a link to a letter Dr. Dennis Johnson wrote to his daughter concerning his renouncement of credo-baptist thinking. It’s a very enlightening letter which sets forth some of the basics of covenantal-paedobaptism. Very easy to comprehend, yet very profound in its exegetical scope, I’d recommend this letter to anyone wrestling with these issues. I personally love this letter because it embodies the inter-personal tension that often accompanies a theological shift like baptism. All of my family and extended family are dispensational Baptist’s whom I love dearly and consider Christian brethren. Still, tough explanations and misunderstandings can often arise because of my differences, especially in light of the fact that our first child will be baptized in November. I think Johnson’s letter reflects the grace, balance, and conviction that must characterize any Christian brother seeking to explain a differing theological position to another.
Here’s a brief summary I wrote for a great class I’m currently taking on Biblical themes in post-Reformation literature. I attempted to summarize a concept emphasized in Leland Ryken’s wonderful essay entitled “Literature in Christian Perspective.” Here’s the excerpt which I build my summary around:
“What characterizes the phenomenon we call literature, and what constitututes its inherent integrity? Literature consists of words, first of all. Yet when Christians talk about literature, it would be easy to get the impression that literature consists of ideas. It does not. When a poet lamented his inability to write poetry even though he was ‘full of ideas’, the French poet Mallamre responded, ‘One does not make poetry with ideas but with words.’ A proper respect for language is thus a pre-requisite to producing and understanding literature. Christianity itself pushes us toward such a respect because it is a revealed religion whose authoritative truths are written in a book. The very fact that God trusted language to communicate the most important message that exists puts Christianity on a collision course with recent theories that deny the ability of language to communicate definite meaning.”
The 21st century philosophical landscape presents Christian students of literature with many forms of linguistic theories difficult to reconcile with a robust Christian worldview grounded in the Scriptures. Questions have arisen concerning the epistemological legitimacy of language to communicate and embody any kind of definite meaning. Deconstructionism has compounded this problem by creating a wholly relative literary enterprise in which the language used in literary discourse is placed in the hands of linguistically suspicious students of seminal texts, these texts relative to the interpretative framework of the individual reader. Leland Ryken answers post-modern theories of textual criticism by appealing to the nature, potential, and end of written discourse. According to Ryken, “a proper respect for language is a pre-requisite to producing and understanding literature (p. 210).” This respect for language cannot be separated from a uniquely Christian understanding of language and its theological connection to the written words of Scripture. Christianity, writes Ryken, “is a revealed religion whose authoritative truths are written in a book (p. 210).” Consequently, it is incumbent upon Christian students of literature to approach all language with an intellectual sobriety. This intellectual sobriety, entailing both aesthetic appreciation and objective ethical standards, arises from its appreciation of the means in which divine revelation is accommodated to mankind. Ryken’s article answers the post-modern rhetoric celebrating the inability of language to communicate definite meaning by appealing to the efficacy of literature and its profound importance within our culture.
