The Manhattan Declaration

December 9, 2009 at 10:10 am (Abortion, Covenant, Law, Marriage, Ph-Government)

I know I’m a bit slow to comment on the Manhattan Declaration, but I wanted some of my fathers in the faith to speak out first before I said anything. I had some initial impressions, but wanted them debated before I stuck out my neck. I shall stick it out now.

On each of the three issues, I issue a hearty amen to the position of the declaration. It would be difficult to do otherwise, when these issues are of such paramount importance, and the stance taken so completely biblical. I have picketed abortion clinics in the past, and support doing so now and in the future (as long as it is done legally). I firmly stand for marriage as God has defined it, not as how man wants to redefine it. And, in our context, where the freedom to worship God has been constantly eroded by humanistic thinking, what Christian wouldn’t be eager to say that he wants the freedom to worship the God he loves?

However, the concerns of Sproul, MacArthur, Horton, and Challies have all raised some very important issues about particular words and ideas used in the effort to create a monolithic Christian coalition on these issues. And there is where the rub lies. How is the word “gospel” and “Christian,” among other words, being used in this document? Is it a wax nose, twistable by any signer or reader into the shape he wishes? I was forced to come to this conclusion: those words are empty vessels, into which anyone can pour what meaning he chooses. I would much have preferred language like this: “Although we do not agree on the definition of “gospel” or “Christian” or “justification,” we can agree on these social issues.” This, I think, would have allowed folks like the ones linked above to sign this document in good conscience. It is really too bad that these flaws are deal-breakers for the men listed above, and for myself, especially when SOO many men I deeply respect have signed it, and when I yearn to say yes on the particular issues.

93 Comments

A Problem Passage for the Definition of “Covenant”

July 7, 2009 at 12:48 pm (Covenant)

I was just reading 1 Kings 8 in preparation for the Lord’s Day coming up, and I noticed a use of the term “covenant” which is extremely problematic for those who define “covenant” as “relationship.” This passage is 1 Kings 8:21. In the context, which is Solomon’s dedication of the temple, we note some interesting things.

First of all, what Solomon says indicates very clearly that the temple is the fulfillment of God’s promise made to his father David. However, verse 21 also implies that the fulfillment of the promise made to David is in turn connected to the covenant God made with the fathers when He brought them out of Egypt. This is indicated by the pronoun “our” connected to the noun “fathers.”

One is reminded of the preface to the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 5, where Moses makes the point that it was not with their fathers (it was, but not absolutely and exclusively) that God had made the covenant, but with those present right there, all of them who were alive at the time of Deuteronomy being given to the people. In other words, 1 Kings 8:21 is a very important verse for deciding what the word “covenant” means, since Solomon is connecting the word not only with the Davidic promise-covenant, but also with the Mosaic covenant.

And here is what he says: the covenant actually resides in the ark of the covenant. What was in the ark of the covenant? The law of God (see verse 9). If covenant equals relationship, then it could not reside in the ark of the covenant. A relationship does not reside in a physical place. But it is actually said that the covenant was IN the ark of the covenant in the obvious form of the tablets of stone, on which were written the Ten Commandments. This points fairly conclusively to a definition of covenant as “agreement.” Of course, the relationship is based on the agreement, and the agreement and the relationship built upon it are closely tied together. And no, contrary to all the rhetoric of the FV folks, saying a covenant is an agreement is not a cold, legal, paperish sort of thing, any more than a marriage certificate is. Looking at my marriage certificate brings many happy memories back to me of the wedding, and of my wife, just as looking at the covenantal agreement in Scripture brings us back to God’s love for us, and the love we are required to give back to God in the form of obedience to the Ten Commandments.

27 Comments

The Relationship of Moses to Adam

March 23, 2009 at 9:49 am (Books (reviews and recommendations), Covenant)

A new book has come out which seeks to clarify the strand of the Reformed tradition that sees republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic economy. It is a collection of essays divided into historical, exegetical, and systematic categories. This book is timely for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the vast amount of confusion I have seen on the internet and in the literature concerning the republication thesis. No one seems to have the foggiest idea what is supposed in this thesis. Just to take one example concerning the relation of the Mosaic economy to the covenant of grace in the republication thesis:

First, to affirm that in some sense the covenant of works is republished at Sinai is not to say that there is a different way of salvation in the Old Testament from the New. The doctrine of republication is not in any way dispensationalism. Advocates of republication universally affirm that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that the gospel was in operation from the instant of man’s fall. Secondly, to affirm the doctrine of republication does not entail the view that the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace (p. 14).

Indeed. This is something that opponents of republication cannot seem to get their head around. That there is a two-fold relation (as Turretin would put it) of the Mosaic to the CoW and to the CoG seems impossible to many. They might even claim that republication mixes law and gospel. Careful readers of this book will hopefully have such erroneous conceptions dispelled.

The first section contains historical articles by John Fesko, Darryl Hart, and Brenton Ferry. Fesko talks about Calvin and Witsius, Hart about Princeton, and Ferry about all the various views that have been promulgated on republication.

The second section has articles by Bryan Estelle on Leviticus 18:5 and Deut 30:1-14, Richard Belcher on the Psalms, Byron Curtis on Hosea 6:7, Guy Waters on Romans 10:5, T. David Gordon on Galatians 3:6-14, and S.M. Baugh on Galatians 5:1-6.

The third section has two theological articles, one by David Van Drunen on the natural law as related to the works principle, and one by Michael Horton on Christ’s total obedience to the law.

I felt that all the articles were competent, and addressed the topic well. For me, the most striking article was T. David Gordon’s article on Galatians 3:6-14. He exegetes the passage extremely well, and finds five ways in which the Sinaitic covenant differs in kind from the Abrahamic as Pauline exegesis (Sinai excludes Gentiles, whereas Abrahamic includes them; Sinai curses, whereas Abrahamic blesses; Sinai is characterized by works of the law, whereas Abrahamic is characterized by grace; Sinai does not justify, whereas the Abrahamic does; and Paul refers to Sinai as ‘law,’ whereas Abrahamic is described as ‘promise.’). Now, his discussion is only summarized this way. His actual argumentation, and the qualifications he puts on these five differences are extremely important. Equally convincing is the response he gives to those who argue that Paul is merely putting down a misinterpretation of the law. Paul is doing no such thing. This is evident in Gordon’s discussion of the translation issue concerning the gratuitous addition of the words “rely on” in many modern translations of Galatians 3:10. He says:

Such a gratuitous error is difficult to account for apart from sheer theological prejudice, a sheer unwillingness to grant that Paul is here speaking of the covenant-administration given at Sinai itslef, not some later, alleged Jewish perversion thereof (p. 245).

In other words, in Galatians 3:10, Paul is not rejecting a perverse “relying on” the works of the law, but rather is showing us that those who are of the works of the law, in that works covenant, are cursed. This, of course, has to be balanced with other descriptions of Sinai as part of the Covenant of grace. Gordon’s target in all this is John Murray’s wholesale recasting of covenant theology in a monocovenantal mode. Gordon argues convincingly that monocovenantal views cannot read Galatians properly.

The book as a whole is well-written. Certainly, many will disagree with some or all of the book. But it is a very important contribution to the discussion.

70 Comments

An Introduction to the Paedo Communion Debate

March 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm (Communion, Covenant)

As promised, this is the first installment of the debate on paedo-communion. The book that is to be the basis of our debate is now available, for those who wish to read the chapters for themselves. It may be a little while before Doug has a chance to respond. I am not sure where he is in the reading of the book.

First up are a couple of disclaimers and distinctions (which is, of course, the main business of Reformed theologians, isn’t it? Isn’t it? Hey, where are you all going?). First of all, this debate is not a continuation of the Federal Vision debate that I have concluded with Doug. Paedo-communion is a distinct, though related issue. The reason this disclaimer is important is that there are quite a few proponents of paedo-communion who have nothing to do with the Federal Vision, and there is at least one FV advocate (Steve Schlissel) who does not hold to paedo-communion. We must be clear on this point. The reaction of Reformed denominations is also important to remember here. While the Federal Vision has been repudiated by many denominations, paedo-communion still finds advocacy among some in Reformed denominations, though the practice has not been allowed. The impetus to discipline folks for holding to PC (which is hereafter my abbreviation for paedo-communion) is much less than for FV teachings, since it is generally recognized that, while contrary to the confessions, it is a less serious and central challenge to the confessions than the FV is.

On to Venema’s first chapter, which is an introduction to the question. He starts with noticing the way people put things. His example is the rhetorical question that is the title for Leithart’s book, Daddy, why was I excommunicated? He states that this title is “an answer masquerading as a question” (p. 1). Quite so. I am quite sure that Leithart intended the title to function that way. To Venema’s mind, this raises the question of the basis on which anyone should be allowed to the table. He summarizes the traditional position well:

Therefore, the only thing preventing such children, or any others, from coming to the Table is the absence of an appropriate response to the invitation. All believers who properly answer the “R.S.V.P.” that accompanies the overtures of God’s grace in Christ are welcome to come to the Lord’s Table.

At the beginning of any good book, the author defines his terms. Venema notes the importance of distinguishing between what he calls a “soft” view of PC, which holds that younger members of the covenant may participate upon a credible profession of faith, and a “strict” view, which believes that any child who is physically able to participate may do so.

It seems to me that Venema very fairly states the ultimate and summary argument of PC: “that there is only one basis for admission to the Table of the Lord, namely, membership in the covenant community” (p. 3). However, Venema is not willing to concede to PC the language of “covenant Communion.” This is because the historic view says that those who participate are covenant members. Therefore, “to treat these terms (Venema means ‘covenant communion’ and ‘credo-communion’, LK) as incompatible is another form of ‘begging the question’” (p. 4). With regard to the two distinct positions, Venema asserts that his focus will be on the “strict” view, delineated in the previous paragraph.

The rest of the chapter is a summary of the main lines of argumentation that PC advocates use. I assume that there is no particular order of importance to the number of the arguments (except that Venema seems to have intended to answer them in this order as well). Firstly, there is the historical argument, which says that PC only stopped because of the doctrine of transubstantiation (why have children spill the blood of God?). Secondly, that admission to the covenant is the only necessary basis for admission of children to the covenant. Thirdly, that the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the OT Passover (which supposedly admitted children to it) indicates that the recipients of both ordinances should be the same. Fourthly, a particular exegetical argument regarding 1 Cor 11, which argues that the chapter in question does not forbid children from the Table.

Update: Doug has emailed me saying that we can expect his first post on this subject around Tuesday of next week.

204 Comments

Election in the New Testament – Part 1

January 31, 2009 at 2:04 pm (Bible, Biblical Theology, Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy, New Testament, Reformed, Theology)

Posted by Bob Mattes

The Federal Vision folks like to say that their view is more Biblical, that they use words in a more Biblical way than classic Reformed formulations. Seven orthodox Reformed denominations have found otherwise, yet the Federal Vision myths persist. Dr. R. F. White wrote a comment on another thread that again struck at the heart of Federal Vision’s defective hermeneutic. In response to Jared, Dr. White wrote:

You [jared] say, “The only manner in which a reprobate can call himself elect is to the extent and duration that he is a member of the visible body.” – I reply, But we would agree that the most important issue is, does God call a reprobate person elect to the extent and duration that he is a member of the visible body, or, for that matter, does God call a reprobate person elect to any extent or duration at all?

This cuts to the heart of Federal Vision’s mythical “objective covenant” and reminded me of a post that I started over a year ago but never finished – until today. Bottom line question: Are there indeed people who are “elect” for a time by virtue of their membership in the visible church but lose that “election” through covenant unfaithfulness? In two letters or less, NO. The New Testament knows no such category of temporary “election,” either inside or outside of the visible church. Allow me to back up that statement.

Read the rest of this entry »

80 Comments

On Being Presbyterian

January 26, 2009 at 11:03 am (Church, Covenant, Reformed, Theology)

Posted by Bob Mattes

Dr. Sean Michael Lucas, Chief Academic Officer and Associate Professor of Church History at Covenant Theological Seminary, wrote the excellent book On Being Presbyterian some time back. He has condensed it down to a set of very nice Powerpoint briefing slides. These provide an excellent summary of the material suitable for new members’ classes or Sunday school. Ideally, of course, members would read the book before class and the briefing slides would be good jumping off points for discussion.

On Being Presbyterian: Our Beliefs, Practices, and Stories makes a great read for new believers, those who transfer from non-Presbyterian or liberal denominations, as well as for those whom God brought into the Reformed faith many years ago. Dr. Lucas has a talent for condensing the essence of the Reformed faith and Presbyterianism down to its core truths. He covers the Reformed faith, worship, the sacraments, church government, and a brief history of the Presbyterian churches, relying heavily on Scripture and the Westminster Standards – all from the perspective of historical Reformed orthodoxy.

I believe that On Being Presbyterian would be a valuable read for all members, new and old, and officers in Presbyterian churches, especially the PCA. These Powerpoint slides will provide a handy means of teaching through the book.

Posted by Bob Mattes

Leave a Comment

Defective, Diminished, and Truncated; a challenge to the FV on Baptismal Regeneration

January 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm (Baptism, Communion, Covenant, Family, Federal Vision)
Tags: ,

This is a post offering a small challenge to the FV’s understanding of baptismal regeneration.

First, I recognize that the FV has denied it believes in the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration (BR). As described in the FV Joint Statement, I disagree with that BR position as well.

Second, the language here of the Joint Statement can be understood to mean that the FV does not reject all BR positions. Indeed, as one proponent demonstrates (outlining the “common” FV BR position), it is clear that the FV does indeed affirm a form of BR.

I have no intention to be pejoratively maligning here. You can take the most egregious of terms, and if you sufficiently redefine them, make them fit for use and agreement with Biblical truth.

No, I’m not interested in a detailed drawn out refutation of the FV BR position. Rather I want to offer one biblical challenge to it. Thus, for the sake of discussion here, I am going to deal with the FV on its own terms.

The FV’s BR position is best described as covenantal baptismal regeneration (their). That, not all baptized are presumed to be vitally regenerate (inwardly regenerated as in when the Spirit vitally unites the decretally elect to Christ). Rather they are to be presumed covenantally regenerate. Consistent with the FV’s “we-can-only-see-the external, i.e., covenantal” hermeneutic, the FV argues that the vital perspective does not come into play. All we have is the external, the covenantal perspective.

(I’m leaving aside the question of functional-equivalency, the appearance that the FV’s distinctionse between covenantal vs. decretal perspectives effectively disappear, so that the latter is in effect equivalent to the former).

Applying the FV’s BR position leads to the presumption that all baptized children are presumed (covenantally) regenerate. This (and some other reasons according to the FV) qualifies them for participation in the Lord’s Supper (LS). If the LS is for the Family of God, and baptized children are (covenantally) regenerate, then they are right recipients of the LS.

At least this is how the FV argument goes. Now to my challenge:

I think I’m safe in saying that the FV agrees that at least in terms of sacramental functionality, circumcision in the OT equals baptism in the NT. Given this, it would follow that if a baptized child in the NT is covenantally regenerate, then a circumcised child in the OT is also. (The FV support for padeo-communion from the OT practice of padeo-passover tangentially at leasts supports that this is a fair logical inference of the FV’s position).

Given this, then we should find evidence in the OT that circumcised children were presumed to be (covenantally) regenerate. Or at least, we should not find evidence challenging this presumption.

I refer you to 1 Samuel 3:7, “Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD,”

This is the passage in which Samuel, under the age of 13 at least (possibly much younger, still pre-K) was called by the Lord to the ministry of a prophet. Here is a par excellent example of an OT covenant child. Not simply circumsized, but raised from weening (3 or 4) in the tabernacle as an “adopted” son of the high priest. If anyone could be presumed to be covenantally regenerate, it was Samuel.

It is interesting to note that the language here is unambiguous. No FV “covenantal perspective” reading is allowed. In view in “knowing the Lord,” is expressly the decretal perspective. Samuel did not yet know the Lord as his Redeemer who had decretally regenerated him.

Now unless the FV wants to borrow from our credo-baptist brothers a discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, I offer that this biblical text effective contradicts the FV BR position.

If Samuel was to expect decretal, vital-regeneration before it could be said that he “knew” the Lord, how can we say that we are not to expect the same for our baptized children?

This, coupled with Romans 10:9-17 (profession of faith), is why I teach my children, and our congregation, to expect a profession of faith, that moment when they are able to voice their own affirmation, just like Samuel, that they have heard the voice of the Lord.

Note that this balances the covenantal and decretal perspectives as well. Of course we cannot know that the baptized child’s profession of faith does indeedflow from decretal regeneration. Yet this is the Bible’s way of coordinating the decretal and the covenantal perspectives. Baptized child are expected to offer a profession of faith because this is what the decretally regenerate children of God do. That reprobate baptized children can do the same does not eliminate the value of requiring this from our children.

In that the FV (at least) ignores this requirement it robs our children of an act of faith that God blesses. In that it has our children come to the Lord’s Table without such requirement, the FV exposes our children to the disciple (judgment) of the warnings associated with the LS.

In that the FV presumes (covenantal) regeneration, and ignores the need for evidence of decretal regeneration, it proposes we raise our children in a defective manner, at best offering them a diminished and truncated faith.

Samuel would be shocked and saddened.

Reed DePace

206 Comments

Further Response to Dr. Clark

July 31, 2008 at 2:51 pm (Covenant, Historical Theology, Theological Encyclopedia)

I will respond to Dr. Clark’s post seriatim.

1. This qualification is well-taken. Olevian is his own man, and has many things in his background influencing his theology, of which one of the more important influences is Calvin’s teaching. This seems nuanced enough for anyone.

2. My argument is not really taking this form. I certainly do not mean to imply in the slightest that Clark has misread Olevian, as I am in no position whatsoever to judge on the matter, as Clark points out. All I really want to ask is this question: given Gaffin’s and Garcia’s interpretation of Calvin (not implying that it is true, merely positing that it is out there) as teaching union with Christ containing the duplex gratia, would Dr. Clark say that Olevian’s doctrine of the covenant functions for Olevian in the same way that Gaffin/Garcia say that union functions for Calvin?

3. It might be that Garcia’s answer to this question (and he would be in a better position to answer it: I have not read Venema’s thesis) would be that the entire thesis is really his justification of his differences with Venema’s analysis. I just throw it out there as something I could imagine Garcia saying. I am not implying that he would say it, or that it is necessarily a logical answer to the question.

4. I agree with Clark’s examples that they are examples of anachronism. However, is asking Calvin (historically speaking) about union with Christ and its relationship to justification and sanctification anachronistic? To me, it does not seem so.

5. I can affirm almost everything in what Dr. Clark says here in relationship to the distinction of historical theology and systematic theology. And I am also grateful that he addressed my concern regarding separating the two. I don’t have any problem with saying that HT and ST have distinct methodologies. My concern is that, ultimately speaking, truth is one. And I am (and I think Dr. Clark is also) seeking to honor that. That being said, the goal of HT, that of accurately describing the theology under examination, is not separated from describing any theology accurately, including Scripture’s theology. Is there such a distinction between HT and ST that there is not some overlap? When we come to Scripture, for instance, are we not engaged in accurately describing the theology of Scripture? When it comes to Scripture, HT and ST are both seeking accurately to describe Scripture’s truth. The problem here is that accurate description of a theologian (who is accurate to Scripture!) will also be an accurate description of Scripture. Of course, the methodologies of HT and ST differ. I do not mean to confuse the two. However, value judgments are inevitable. I do not believe that there is such a thing as complete objectivity. Of course there is absolute truth. However, our appropriation of it must be biased, hopefully by the biblical bias. We want to think God’s thoughts after Him, and His thoughts are the only true ones.

6. I don’t believe that I am transmuting “logically” into “temporally.” Let me explain what I mean: it seems to me that justification is grounded on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Sanctification is grounded on the righteousness of Christ infused into us. It is the same righteousness, but appropriated differently (although faith is the instrument in both). This is part of the reason why I want to say that they are simul (does Clark agree that Calvin is saying simul?). The infusion is not based on the imputation. Rather, they are simultaneously given (justification in its punctiliar manner, sanctification in its progressive manner). This preserves the distinction between them without saying that they are separated. Now, I would never accuse any of the WSC profs of saying that justification and sanctification are separated (contra the writers of A Faith That Is Never Alone). But it seems to me easier to hold them together if they are given simul. This is not the reason why I hold this belief, but rather a practical ramification of it.

7. In phone conversations with Dr. Gaffin, the way he put it to me was that the doctrine of justification itself is the same among the Reformed and the Lutherans, but that the context of that doctrine in the loci is distinct. I still wonder if rapprochement between WTS and WSC is not possible exactly here: covenant functions for WSC the way union functions for WTS. Both seminaries seem to agree that something holds justification and sanctification together. One says union and the other says covenant. I bet almost anything there is a way to come together on this.

8. Pedagogy does not define the ordo salutis. I agree with that. And it is important to remember. My point is this: if sanctification is logically dependent on justification, then why not treat justification first? Is it not good pedagogy to make the ordo docendi follow the ordo salutis? Does this not happen in almost every systematic theology which we possess? In a sense, we are talking about form and meaning. The form that Calvin’s Institutes takes means something. We know that the final edition of the Institutes was the result of great wrestling in the mind of Calvin to get the order and arrangement correct. That means, that in the mind of Calvin, treating sanctification first was the correct order for pedagogical purposes. Why? It seems to me that the Gaffin/Garcia model here can explain that. I would very much like to see Clark give an explanation for why this is.

9 Comments

A Response to Dr. Clark

July 31, 2008 at 10:43 am (Covenant, Faith, Historical Theology, Law, Sanctification)

Many thanks to Dr. Clark for taking the time to respond to me. There are some very helpful clarifications there of what he was trying to accomplish in writing his book. I am still left with a few questions that I would like to lay out there.

1. I agree that there is very little substantive difference between Calvin’s duplex gratia and Olevian’s duplex beneficium. This is not all that surprising, since, as Dr. Clark notes in his book, Olevian was Calvin’s student.

2. What is Dr. Clark’s definition of “substantive interaction?” He makes the claim that Garcia did not substantively interact with Cornelis Venema’s thesis. At the very end of page 11, and going through page 14, Garcia at least interacts with Venema’s thesis. The question is: does this qualify as “substantive?” Added to these pages, the footnote on page 34 may be added, which clarifies for us the relationship of Venema’s thesis to Garcia’s thesis. Given the crowded nature of theses on Calvin, my impression was that Garcia gave as much time to Venema as to anyone else. Not even Lillback or Armstrong receive more attention than Venema. Garcia was generally favorable to Venema’s thesis, while allowing that further development of various aspects of Venema’s thesis was possible.

3. I do not think that my question concerning union with Christ, justification, and sanctification is anachronistic. I think it genuinely is something that Calvin was dealing with. And in saying this, my motivation is to ask what Calvin believed, not to try to find some antecedent for my favorite theologians. Instead, I am asking the question in this way: is Gaffin correctly understanding Calvin? Is Garcia correctly understanding Calvin?

4. I am not so sure that it is a good idea to separate historical inquiry from systematic theology. We can distinguish them. However, compartmentalization of the two is not healthy, in my mind. This is the field of my thesis, by the way. The separation of the two enterprizes is not something that the Reformers would have done. They dance happily among the various theological disciplines (which only we, in our post-Enlightenment state, have separated) with almost no awareness that they have crossed the boundaries of disciplines. They engaged in historical theology in order to prove their systematic theses. Their systematic theses were historically conditioned. Both were grounded in exegesis and used in polemics against Rome, the Anabaptists, the Lutherans, and later on, the Socinians. All of this had profound practical ramifications for the Christian life. Why is it a good thing to cordon off historical theology from systematic theology? I know that this is how historical theology is done today. But should it be done this way?

5. What places in Calvin support the claim that union is an a posteriori explanation of how one comes to faith in Christ? My original question was whether justification and sanctification can be considered temporally distinct in view of the simul in Calvin’s Romans commentary. I do not feel that this question has been answered.

6. I would agree that the structure and doctrine of justification itself in the Reformed world of the 16th and 17th centuries is precisely the same as the Lutherans. It is in this sense that we can speak of a pan-Protestant doctrine of justification. However, it seems to me that the relationship of justification to other doctrines (like covenant and union with Christ) is where there are differences between the Reformed and the Lutherans. Would Dr. Clark agree with this assessment?

7. Why did Calvin treat sanctification before justification?

6 Comments

A Book Review of Scott Clark’s Book on Caspar Olevian

July 30, 2008 at 4:33 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations), Christology, Covenant)

Dr. Clark invited me to read his book a while back. So I bought the book and read it. And I’m very glad I did. It is very well-written and very well researched. I say I am writing a book review. However, it must not be thought that I am any sort of expert in the field of historical theology. I write this post very much from the perspective of a student learning from a professor, not as a colleague. It is available here.

I really have almost nothing to criticize about the book. Clark first explores the historical context, debunking a number of curious myths about the Reformed faith in the 16th century (such as saying that the Reformed were in positions of power throughout Europe during this time; rather, most Reformed folk were aliens and strangers). Clark sets Olevian firmly in the historical context of 16th century Germany. His importance is often overlooked, and it is somewhat startling to read that “the Palatinate of this period cannot be fairly interpreted without Caspar Olevian” (pp. 20-21). Of course, he is (justly) famous primarily for being one of the two main authors of the Heidelberg Catechism. However, his theology is not so well known. Lyle Bierma has written an excellent study on Olevian. However, Clark’s study is by no means superfluous, as Bierma himself acknowledges. Indeed, Clark’s study moves beyond Bierma in placing Olevian’s covenant theology in the context of his entire theology.

Olevian was a humanist (in the Renaissance sense of the term, a linguist) who was well-educated in the classics (chapter 3). He brought this training to bear on his theology in his methodology, not in an anti-Protestant rationalising movement (pg. 41). In other words, scholastic humanism influenced how he did theology, not so much what he actually said. In so doing, he functions as “a transitional stage in Reformed orthodoxy between the earlier stages of Protestant theology and the more highly developed dogmatic theology of the seventeenth century” (pg. 73).

Olevian’s covenantal theology depends on his trinitarian theology (chapter 4), since “the covenant is nothing more than a way of describing the relations which obtain between the triune God and his people” (pg. 74). In this chapter, Clark deals with several theologians in order to set the context for Olevian’s theology.

Calvin is included, of course, since Olevian was one of Calvin’s students (pg. 84). It is in this chapter that Clark addresses Calvin’s doctrine of mystical union. It is here that I would have some questions to ask Dr. Clark. First question: if Books 3 and 4 of Calvin’s Institutes “focus on (sic, ‘the’) Holy Spirit’s work in uniting sinners to Christ and sanctifying them in the church through the means of grace” (pg. 83), and given the use of the word “simul” in Calvin’s Commentaries on Romans (see Mark Garcia’s book, pg. 135) to describe the simultaneously given sanctification and justification, to what extent is Clark willing to say that sanctification is the result of union, but justification is not?

Chapter 3.1.1 of the Institutes clearly says that nothing of what Christ did is of any value to us unless we are united to him. This includes what Christ did for our justification. Without union, no justification, in other words. Can we really say that there is a time lapse in between justification and sanctification? I confess to having a hard time with this. Is it true that the infusion of the grace of sanctification happens “subsequent to justification” (pg. 83)? If this is so, then why did Calvin treat sanctification (chapters 1-10 of Book 3) before justification (chapters 11-18)? It would seem to me (and this point is not original with me; I believe that Dr. Gaffin first suggested it to me) that Calvin did this because of a polemical rhetoric against Rome’s claim that justification encouraged license. Calvin’s point is that it doesn’t matter which order you put them in because they are simul in union with Christ. Of course, 99.9999999% of sanctification occurs after justification. But the beginning of it is given at the same time as justification, so that justification and sanctification are distinct, yet inseparable aspects of union with Christ.

I think I have read Clark saying somewhere that the order is logical, not temporal. Fair enough. However, it seems to me that such language almost inevitably results in temporal thinking, much like the order of the decrees when discussing supra- and infralapsarianism. How can one talk of temporal order in the decrees of God, which were all determined in eternity (simul)? Yet the debate between the two positions almost inevitably resorts to temporal language. Of course that is eternity, and this is time. Nevertheless, I think it is best to speak of justification and sanctification being given sultaneously in union with Christ. I don’t have any great quibble with Westminster West’s way of putting it. I’m sure that they would affirm that one cannot be justified without at once being sanctified. True justification is inseparable with true sanctification. The difference is that milli-second…

It seems to me that what union with Christ does for the Westminster East folks, covenant does in this book. Covenant is what joins together the duplex gratia in Olevian’s theology (according to Clark, pp. 139-140). I wonder if this might be the place where Westminster East and West might be able to meet: is not union with Christ an integral, nay, definitional part of the substance of the covenant? If so, then there might very well be a place where they could meet together and agree.

7 Comments

« Older entries