Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Al Wolters on Nature and Grace in Proverbs 31

by

Wolters, Albert M. “Nature and Grace in the Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10-31.” Calvin Theological Journal 19, no. 2 (November 1, 1984): 153-166.

In this article, Wolters looks at how different views of the relation between nature and grace have affected the interpretation of Proverbs 31:10-31.

He observes that those who oppose grace to nature tend to allegorize this passage. This was common from Origen through the Middle Ages. Even interpreters who focused on the literal sense, like Nicholas of Lyra, took the allegorical understanding to be the literal sense of this passage. Since Toy, many critical interpreters who assume that ancient Israel held a nature against grace view claim the poem was originally secular.

In the 18th-20th centuries, Catholic writers give a grace above nature interpretation of this passage. On this reading, much of the passage deals with merely natural virtues, but at the end of the poem these are transcended by true fear of God.

Luther exemplifies the grace alongside nature view. Wolters notes that Luther was influential in ending the allegorical interpretation of the passage. But Luther still distinguished grace and nature in this marginal comment to his translation of the passage: “That is to say, a woman can live with a man honourably and piously and can with a good conscience be a housewife, but she must also, in addition and next to this, fear God, have faith and pray.”

Regarding a grace restores nature viewpoint, Wolters says, “Applied to the Song of Proverbs 31, this paradigm fosters an interpretation which looks upon the fear of the Lord as integral to the poem as a whole. Religion is not restricted to verse 30, but pervades the whole… Here the woman’s household activities are seen, not as something opposed to, or even distinct from, her fear of the Lord, but rather as its external manifestation.”

Wolters holds to the fourth view, but he is willing to grant that the “Valiant Woman as the personification of Wisdom—not in an allegorical sense, but in the sense of an earthly embodiment of what it means to be wise.”

Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will

by

Luther, Martin. Career of the Reformer III. In Luther’s Works. Volume 33. Edited by Helmutt Lehmann and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999. [Bondage of the Will]

The Bondage of the Will is essential reading. Luther believed that Erasmus, to whom he is responding, reached the heart of the Reformation in his critique. It is important to recognize that by bondage of the will Luther does not mean that people do not do what they please. Rather, he means that the will is so bound by sin that people will not choose to come to God apart from the working of God upon their hearts. Luther’s argumentation is both theological and exegetical.

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.”

“Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?”

by

Herzer, Mark A. “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” In Drawn Into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Mark Herzer observes that while Reformed theologians agreed that Adam would have received eternal life if he had kept the covenant of works, disagreement existed as to where that life would have been lived. On one side were Francis Turretin, Thomas Boston, Thomas Ridgley, and John Brown who held this was to be a heavenly life. On the other side were Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, and Jonathan Edwards who held to an earthly life in paradise. Others, John Ball, Peter Bulkeley, and Anthony Burgess did not think there was enough biblical data on which to take a position.

Herzer focuses his attention on Thomas Goodwin and Francis Turretin. Goodwin argued for an earthly life on the basis that only Christ, who is both God and man could secure a heavenly reward. Turretin argued that if the threat is eternal death in hell, the reward could not be less than heaven.

Calvin on the Inseparability of Justification and Sanctification

by

For we dream neither of a faith devoid of good works nor of a justification that stands without them. This alone is of importance: having admitted that faith and good works must cleave together, we still lodge justification in faith, not in works. We have a ready explanation for doing this, provided we turn to Christ to whom our faith is directed and from whom it receives its full strength.

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he “is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” [1 Cor. 1:30]. Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.

But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [1 Cor. 1:13].

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2011), 1:798 [3.16.1].

Tim Miller on the Relation between Union with Christ, Justification, and Sanctification

by

Miller, Timothy. “The Debate Over the Ordo Salutis in American Reformed Theology,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 18 (2013): 41-66.

In this piece Tim examines the different ways in which union with Christ, justification, and sanctification are related to one another by individuals connected with either Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (Gaffin, Tipton, Garcia, Evans) or Westminster Seminary California (Clark, Fesko, Horton, VanDrunen, and Godfrey). In unpacking this debate Miller first examines the Lutheran ordo salutis since some accuse those on the Westminster Seminary California (WSC) side of adopting a Lutheran ordo. Lutheran theologians have rejected the idea that union with Christ is the unifying soteriological category and that soteriological benefits flow from union. Instead, Lutherans have all soteriological benefits, including union with Christ, flow from justification.

Miller then turns to the WSC ordo. First, those aligned with WSC argue that Lutherans and the Reformed share the same conception of justification. Second, they affirm that all other soteriological benefits flow from justification. This does not mean that theologians, such as Michael Horton, wish to deny that the other soteriological benefits are all connected to union with Christ. But “he also believes that within the unfolding drama of human history, justification is the source of the other soteric benefits” (48). This position raises the issue of how justification and sanctification relate to each other as “distinct–yet-inseparable.” Third, and as a result of the first two points, union with Christ is distinguished into a forensic union and a renovative union. This is not a claim that there are two unions but that the one union has two aspects.

Having outlined the WSC ordo Miller then outlines the ordo associated with Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (WTS). In contrast to WSC, those aligned with WTS distinguish Lutheran and Calvin’s conceptions of justification in that Calvin affirmed that “so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us” (Institutes 3.1.1). (On this point Calvin is said to differ from late Reformed federal theology.) Justification therefore flows from a union with Christ that is obtained by faith. From union with Christ flow the double benefits of justification and sanctification. These two benefits are inseparable as they both come from union with Christ, but they are also distinct. Finally, instead of distinguishing between forensic and renovative aspects of union, those associated with WTS seek to relate the historia salutis with the ordo salutis. Miller summarizes this in four points: “First, the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus includes within it His adoption, justification, and sanctification (57-58). Second, “believers are united with Christ into His life history—His death, burial, and resurrection” (59). Third, “the redeemed share with Christ all of His soteric benefits in union with His person and work” (60). Fourth, “because Christ contains in Himself all the soteric benefits, union with Him provides all benefits simultaneously, distinctly, and inseparably” (61).

Having outlined the debate Miller probes the significance of the two positions. First, if the WTS position is correct, the Roman Catholic objection that Protestantism leads to “immoral living” is answered. Sanctification is inseparable (though district) from justification as a benefit of union with Christ. Second, the WTS position more clearly guards the forensic nature of justification by not having sanctification flow from justification. Third, the WTS ordo emphasizes the centrality of Christ rather than subsuming Christ as one benefit among others within the ordo.

As should be clear, Miller favors the WTS view. Unreflected in this summary, but present in the article, are the exegetical arguments that lead Miller to favor the WTS viewpoint. I found this to be a clear and compelling article and recommend it to all interested in this issue.

Naselli, No Quick Fix

by

Naselli, Andrew David. No Quick Fix: Where Higher Life Theology Came From, What It Is, and Why It’s Harmful. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2017.

This book, a popularization of Andy’s first dissertation, does just what its subtitle says it does. It gives a history of higher life theology, describes what it is, and provides ten reasons for rejecting it. An appendix provides resources that make a positive contribution to understanding and applying the doctrine of sanctification.

The book is brief, the writing is clear, the theology it espoused is sound. At times Andy provides exegetical treatments of key passages (e.g., Ephesians 5:18). These were often so good that I dropped them into my notebooks on those passages. Highly recommended.

Review of R. Michael Allen, Justification and the Gospel

by

Allen, R. Michael. Justification and the Gospel: Understanding the Contexts and Controversies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Allen’s book on justification is a careful, informed treatment of justification in light of current controversies. It has a number of strengths: It is defending the orthodox, Reformation position on justification; it lays out a cogent methodology for systematic theology; it interacts skillfully with the entire history of theology from the patristics to the present; it relates justification to union with Christ, the obedience of Christ, Federal theology, sanctification, and the church while still maintaining justification’s uniqueness. A number of weaknesses should also be noted. Allen too often quotes positively and without caveat theologians outside of Protestant orthodoxy such as Barth. He also overquotes certain authors. In one section of the book, he quoted John Webster so often that I thought I should put Allen down and simply read Webster for myself. Finally, his section on the church was explicitly opposed to Baptist ecclesiology. These weaknesses aside, this is a worthwhile book for someone with theological training.

Thomas Boston on Conversion

by

“Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,” Psal. cx. 5, i. e. free, ready, open hearted, giving themselves to thee as free-will offerings. When the bridegroom has the bride’s heart, it is a right marriage ; but some give their hand to Christ, who give him not their heart. They that are only driven to Christ by terror, will surely leave him again, when that terror is gone. Terror may break a heart of stone, but the pieces into which it is broken still continue to be stone ; the terrors cannot soften it into a heart of flesh. Yet terror may begin the work, which love crowns ; the strong wind, the earthquake, and the fire going before ; the still small voice, in which the Lord is, may come after them.

Thomas Boston, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, 247.

The Significance of Our Union with Christ

by

First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he had received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called ‘our Head’ [Eph. 4:15], and ‘the first-born among many brethren’ [Rom. 8:29]. We also, in turn, after said to be ‘engrafted into him’ [Rom 11:17], and to ‘put on Christ’ [Gal. 3:27]; for, as I have said, all that he possess is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him.

Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1.