Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Mark Garcia on Union with Christ in Calvin’s Theology

by

Mark A. Garcia, “Of Doorposts and Hinges: Calvin on Union with Christ.” (2009).

In this unpublished paper, Garcia argues Calvin saw both justification and sanctification flow from a single union with Christ: “The blessings of union with Christ, then, are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneously bestowed” (5). It is not the case that Justification is the basis for union with Christ, but the reverse. The question then arises: how does one make sense of Calvin’s statement that justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns,” “the sum of all piety,” and even “the foundation for all godliness?” Garcia argues that the meaning of “religion,” piety,” and “godliness” are important here. When Calvin speaks of religion here he is not speaking in terms of a theological system but in terms of the Christian life Theologically, justification is not the ground of sanctification, but experientially it is. “To see this, one needs only to turn to Calvin’s brilliant treatment of justification in his Institutes, Book 3, and note that whenever he uses language that suggests, at first sight, that justification is central to salvation or the Christian faith, or that justification causes sanctification, one finds that he has this experiential, not theological (as distinguished above), connection in view. In fact, in places where he does turn to the theological relationship, and one perhaps expects him to ground sanctification in justification, one discovers instead that he turns not to justification but to union with Christ, even in the midst of his treatment of justification” (12).

But what does it mean to say that justification is the experiential foundation for Christian piety? Garcia explains: “justification by faith alone affords the believer the necessary and essential confidence before God, the secure and stable foundation of a pure conscience, that spurs him on in the pursuit of piety and walking in holiness.” And why is Calvin concerned to maintain this? Because he desired to combat the Roman Catholic claim that the Protestant view of justification resulted in a legal fiction with no real impact on holy living.

Garcia, Mark A. “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 219-51.

In this article Garcia challenges those who think they can replace the concept of imputation with that of union with Christ (N. T. Wright, Don Garlington, Richard Hays, etc.). Garcia objects that these interpreters too often fail to probe what the nature of union with Christ is, which is a necessary step prior to determining whether imputation is necessary. As a way of answering the question of the nature of the union, Garcia examines Calvin’s controversy with Osiander, an extreme Lutheran. In the course of this study, Garcia observes that Calvin brought together his view of union with Christ with his debate with the Lutherans regarding their insistence on the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature and its presence in the Lord’s Supper. In contrast to the Lutherans, the Reformed held that what is true of the natures of Christ are attributed to the Person. Analogously (but only analogously since our union with Christ is not hypostatic), the righteousness of Christ is attributed to those in union with him on the grounds that they are in union with him. But to say this is simply to say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. In other words, imputation works along with union with Christ rather than apart from it. It is an important theological concept because it reminds us that even though there is union “two distinct beings are always in view.”

Shepherd of Hermas and the Canon

by

Steenberg, M. C. “Irenaeus on Scripture, Graphe, and the Status of Hermas,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2009): 29-66.

In Against Heresies 4.20.2 Irenaeus identifies a quotation from Shepherd of Hermas as γραφη. Scholars have debated whether Irenaeus is referring to the quotation simply as a writing, as he does in some other instances, or as Scripture. Steenberg surveys all of the uses of γραφη in Against Heresies. He observes that Irenaeus does sometimes use γραφη to refer to a particular writing, but in those cases, there is some contextual marker that identifies which particular writing is being referred to. Irenaeus also uses γραφη frequently to refer to the Scriptures or to Scripture texts. Steenberg makes a persuasive case that this is the use of γραφη in AH 4.20.2 since the usage matches the other instances where Irenaeus refers to Scripture and since the quotation from Hermas is grouped with other Scripture quotations. Less convincing was the theory of Irenaeus’s view of the canon that Steenberg also developed in this article.

Hill, C. E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 2 (1995): 437-51.

This article reviews a book by Geoffrey Hahnemann which argues that the Muratorian Fragment should be dated in the fourth century rather than the late second/early third century, which is the traditional date. If the Muratorian Fragment is from the late second/early third century, it is the earliest known canon list, and its listing “has the same ‘core’ of writings which were later agreed upon by the whole church,” though there are some missing books and the Wisdom of Solomon is included. Hahnemann holds to a theory that claims the canon was not established until the fourth century. The early dating of the Muratorian Fragment is an obstacle to Hahnemann’s theory and motivates his attempt to re-date it. Hill effectively demonstrates the numerous problems with Hahnemann’s arguments.

I read the article because the Muratorian Fragment speaks to the canonicity of the Shepherd of Hermas:, not that it was “written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome [139–154 AD]. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.” Hill observes: “Irenaeus’ use of the Shepherd forms an entirely plausible setting for the Fragment’s specification that it should be read but cannot be classed with the Scriptures and read in public worship” (439). Hill also notes, “Tertullian tells us that the Shepherd’s standing had at least by the second decade of the third century been considered by several councils, with unanimously negative results…. That these councils declared Hermas not only to be apocryphal but “false” may indicate an indictment as false prophecy, or the reputation of a claim made for the identity of its author” (439-40). (This is relevant to Hill’s argument because the Muratorian Fragment’s claim that Hermas was written “very recently” at the time of a second-century bishop of Rome is a clear obstacle to Hahnemann’s re-dating.)

Warfield on New England Theology

by

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. “Edwards and the New England Theology.” In Works of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. Edited by Ethelbert D. Warfield, William Park Armstrong, and Caspar Wistar Hodge. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Warfield proceeds along chronological lines, beginning with Edwards’s youth and proceeding to the New England theology which developed after Edwards’s death. Warfield observes that it was in Edwards’s youth and collegiate years that he gave attention to scientific and metaphysical matters. He claims that in this period, independent of Berkeley, Edwards developed a system if idealism. Warfield observes that though Edwards did not continue with these philosophical writings after this period, the philosophical conclusions he reached in this period continued to inform his thought.

When Edwards became a pastor at Northampton, his writing turned to the pastoral. He produced sermons and practical works such as “Narrative of Surprising Conversions” and Religious Affections. Once removed from Northampton to Stockbridge, Edwards produced his major theological works on original sin, the freedom of the will, the chief end of man, the nature of true virtue, and the history of redemption. Though Edwards had long collected in notebooks thoughts on these subjects, this was the period in which he was able to bring these thoughts together into coherent works.

Warfield observes that the New England Theology that followed Edwards was influenced by the Edwards of the Awakening and by his theological method. Their theology, however, developed into something quite opposed to Edwards. Warfield observes that, like Edwards, their method of theology was philosophical and the result of “independent reflection.” But, unlike Edwards, they were not as rooted in historical theology. As a result, they developed a unique theology of which Warfield says, “it is only right frankly to describe as provincial.”

In the article Warfield observed that much of Edwards’s writing remained in manuscript at Yale. Since Warfield wrote those words much of this material has been transcribed and published. As a result, Edwards scholarship has developed. Nonetheless, this article remains a helpful introduction to Edwards and the New England THeology that followed him.

B. B. Warfield on Reformation 400

by

For those looking for reading to do for the five-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, it would be hard to improve on two articles by B. B. Warfield written for the four-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. “The Ninety-Five Theses in Their Theological Significance.” In The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Edited by Ethelbert D. Warfield, William Park Armstrong, and Caspar Wistar Hodge. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

This article, written in 1917 for the four-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, begins by rejecting the following thesis: When Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses, he was only protesting the abuse of indulgences and not the entire system. Warfield debunks this thesis with an exposition of the Theses that shows that indulgences were part of a sacerdotal system that Luther had already rejected and replaced with an evangelical doctrine of salvation.

Warfield, B. B. “The Theology of the Reformation.” In The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Edited by Ethelbert D. Warfield, William Park Armstrong, and Caspar Wistar Hodge. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

In this article, written on the 400th anniversary of the Reformation, Warfield argues that the Reformation was “the substitution of one set of doctrines for another.” He maintains it was not primarily a matter of Luther’s experience. It was the change in doctrine that enabled the experience. Nor was it primarily a reform of corruption in the church. That had long been tried, but only a change in doctrine made such reform successful.

Warfield argues that the center of this doctrinal claim is that salvation can in no way be merited by works but can only be obtained through Christ crucified alone by grace alone. Warfield takes Luther’s reply to Erasmus, “On the Enslaved Will,” to be the fundamental statement of Reformation theology.

D. A. Carson on the Value of the Reformation for Pastors

by

In the current 9Marks Journal on the Reformation D. A. Carson has an excellent article about the value pastors receive in studying the Reformation. Included in the article are these quotable observations:

A pastor is by definition something akin to a GP (a “general practitioner”). He is not a specialist in, say, divorce and remarriage, missions history, cultural commentary, or particular periods of church history. Yet most pastors will have to develop competent introductory knowledge in all these areas as part of his application of the Word of God to the people around him. And that means he is obligated to devote some time each year to reading in broad areas.

D. A. Carson, “Should Pastors Today Care about the Reformation?” 9Marks Journal (Fall 2017): 17.

[T]he study of the Reformation is especially salutary as a response to those who think the so-called “Great Tradition,” as preserved in the earliest ecumenical creeds, is invariably an adequate basis for ecumenical unity, as if there were no heresies invented after the fourth century. On this front, study of the Reformation usefully fosters a little historical realism.

D. A. Carson, “Should Pastors Today Care about the Reformation?” 9Marks Journal (Fall 2017): 18.

But although I have read right through, say, Julian of Norwich, I find a great deal of subjective mysticism and virtually no grounding in Scripture or the gospel. And for the life of me I cannot imagine either Peter or Paul recommending monastic withdrawal in order to attain greater spirituality: it is always a danger when certain ascetic practices become normative paths to spirituality when there is no apostolic support for them.

Our contemporary generation, tired of merely cerebral approaches to Christianity, is drawn to late patristic and medieval patterns of spirituality. What a relief, then, to turn to the warmest of the writings of the Reformers, and discover afresh the pursuit of God and his righteousness well grounded in holy Scripture. That is why Luther’s letter to his barber remains such a classic: it is full of godly application of the gospel to ordinary Christians, building up a conception of spirituality that is not reserved for the elite of the elect but for all brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, the opening chapters of Book III of Calvin’s Institutes provides more profound reflection on true spirituality than many much longer contemporary volumes.

D. A. Carson, “Should Pastors Today Care about the Reformation?” 9Marks Journal (Fall 2017): 19.

Danger of Conforming Theology to Contemorary Cultural Mores

by

Certain kinds of religious leader gravitated toward eugenics in the early twentieth century, ministers anxious about the changing culture but also eager to find solutions to its diagnosable ills. Theirs was a practical spirituality better understood in terms of worldviews than theologies. Many of the religious leaders who joined the eugenics movement were well-known, even notorious, for their lack of coherent doctrinal vision; of one Congregationalist advocate for eugenics it was said, “He is not a theologian in the ordinary sense, for he loves flowers more than botany.” Of another, a well-known Baptist minister, one critic noted the impossibility of constructing even a preliminary image of his beliefs: “No painter who ever lived could make a picture which expressed the religion of the Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick.” These were preachers who embraced modern ideas first and adjusted their theologies later. Theirs were the churches that had naves and transepts modeled after gothic European cathedrals—as well as bowling alleys. And it was when these self-identified liberal and modernist religious men abandoned bedrock principles to seek relevance in modern debates that they were most likely to find themselves endorsing eugenics. Those who clung stubbornly to tradition, to doctrine, and to biblical infallibility opposed eugenics and became, for a time, the objects of derision for their rejection of this most modern science.

Christin Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 5.

The evidence yields a clear pattern about who elected to support eugenicstyle reforms and who did not. Religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets. The liberals and modernists in their respective faiths—those who challenged their churches to conform to modern circumstances—became the eugenics movement’s most enthusiastic supporters. Theologically, these men were creative, deliberately vague, or perhaps even, as their critics contended, deeply confused. In terms of solving social problems, however, their purpose was clear: They were dedicated to facing head-on the challenges posed by modernity. Doing so meant embracing scientific solutions.

Christin Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 184

A Reformation 500 Read: Luther’s Works, Volume 32

by

Forell, George W., ed. Career of the Reformer II. Luther’s Works. Volume 32. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958.

Volume 32 of Luther’s Works (along with volume 31, which includes the 95 Theses) is an ideal volume to read on 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It includes the account of Luther at the Diet of Worms, his point-by-point response to the bull, Exsurge Domine,  promulgated against Luther by Pope Leo X, and Luther’s account of the burning of Dutch reformer, Brother Henry, for the faith.

Review of Gonzalez, Story of Christianity, Volume 2

by

s-l1000-1Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day. Revised edition. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

The coverage of the Reformation in this volume is good, but many other areas suffer from serious defects. For instances, the coverage of Protestant Orthodoxy still follows the older neo-orthodox historiography and fails to reckon with the scholarship of Richard Muller and others. The coverage of fundamentalism does not take into account the work of George Marsden. With regard to recent church history, evangelical history is given minimal attention while a great deal of attention is given to the ecumenism and liberation theology. I found the coverage of Vatican II and the World Council of Churches helpful, but as the book moves toward the end Gonzalez’s own theological predilections become clearer in ways not entirely fitting for a broad-scale historical survey of church history.

Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries

by

Greenman, Jeffrey P., Timothy Larsen, and Stephen R. Spencer, eds. The Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries: From the Early Church to John Paul II. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007.

This is a survey of the views of Chrysostom, Augustine, Hugh of St. Victor, Dante, Chaucer, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Surgeon, Yoder, Woytla, Boff, and Stott. Many chapters were well written. But the ethos was ecumenical, and the Spurgeon chapter was written entirely out of sympathy with Spurgeon.

Thoughts on VanDoodewaard’s Quest for the Historical Adam

by

VanDoodewaard, William. The Quest for the Historical Adam: Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2015.

VanDoodewaard provides a helpful survey of views about Genesis, Creation, and Adam from the time of the church fathers until the present. He holds to a young earth and a normal day creation, but most of the book is simply a very helpful summarizing of viewpoints.

In reading the book, I concluded that some of the criticisms that I read of this book were off mark. For instance, VanDoodewaard has been critiqued for describing his view as literal, and I did once see him describe a view positively as literalistic. But he notes toward the beginning of the book the various ways the word literal can be used and how he is going to use it.I think since VanDoodewaard expresses awareness of the various ways this term can be used and specifies how he is using it, he should not be critiqued on this point (further, reviewers should provide his working definition if they use the word in the review to describe his position).

I came to a similar conclusion regarding his discussion of racism on the part of evolutionists but not on the part of creationists. If my memory serves me correctly, he alludes to the racism on the part of some creationists, but he does not discuss it because it does not flow from their view of creation as the racism of certain evolutionists did. I think these criticisms are simply asking VanDoodewaard to write a different book than he intended to write.

I do, however, wish that he had provided more information on the motivations of those who were abandoning a literal interpretation of Genesis prior to Darwin. They obviously were not motivated by a desire to accommodate themselves to Darwinism, but they did seem to be influenced by Enlightenment thought. Knowing precisely what it was that motivated these changes in interpretation would have been useful.

Also, VanDoodewaard strongly critiqued Kuyper, Bavinck, and Schilder for acknowledging that the first three days of creation could have been longer or shorter than ordinary days, implying that this set a slippery slope for compromise in the next generation. I didn’t quite follow this argumentation, since these men were not saying (in fact, they explicitly denied) that these first three days were long ages. It seems to me that they were simply saying that since there was no sun until day 4, perhaps the first three days could have been only 18 hours long or 36 hours long. I don’t see a reason to adopt this supposition, but it seems in line enough with an ordinary day view of the creation week that I felt like I was missing the information on how this position led to compromise. Were there other aspects to it?

These quibbles aside, however, I highly commend VanDoodewaard’s work. His historical work is careful and accurate. His understanding of the issues invovled and the significance of the views taken is incisive.