This occasion was too good for only one blog.
Month: May 2009
Justification by Works, What the . . . !
Or, beware the ellipses.
Steven R. Coxhead, an Old Testament scholar in Australia, has a piece in the current issue of the Westminster Theological Journal that is mind numbingly perplexing. The title gives away the author’s argument: “John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine of Justification by Works.†He concludes that although Calvin rejected a view of justification that included faith and works, still Calvin “did teach a doctrine of justification by works that operates on two levels.†For Coxhead, justification by faith alone operates in Calvin on a level of absolute righteousness, while justification by works operates on the level of “God’s gracious covenant.†He adds that those who “deny Calvin taught a subordinate and legitimate doctrine of justification by works have arguably not understood the genius of Calvin’s teaching on this issue.â€
Say what?
Could it be that Coxhead has failed to understand Calvin on justification? For instance, he uses this quotation from the Institutes to substantiate his argument:
“Works righteousness . . . depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this†and “ought to . . . be subordinated to [faith] . . . as effect to cause.†[17]
Here is the full quotation from Calvin [3.17.10]:
Therefore, as we ourselves, when we have been engrafted in Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christian’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified. Now if this works righteousness – whatever its character – depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this, it ought to be included under faith and be subordinated to it, so to speak, as effect to cause, so far is it from having any right be raised up to destroy or becloud justification of faith.
Another example of Coxhead’s selectivity comes when he quotes Calvin to say: “it follows from justification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy in God’s sight, not to mention his love, are accounted [i.e., imputed as] righteousness.†[17]
Compare this snippet with the full section in Calvin [3.17.9]:
Now if anyone raises this objection against me to impugn faith righteousness, I shall first ask whether a man is reckoned righteous because of one or two holy works, while he is a transgressor in the remaining works of his life. This is indeed more than absurd. Then I shall inquire whether he is reckoned righteous even on account of many good works if he is in some part indeed found guilty of transgression. He will not dare put forward this contention when the sanction of the law cries out and proclaims accursed all who have not completely fulfilled all the commandments of the law [Deut. 27:26]. I shall inquire still further – whether there be any work that does not deserve to be censured for some impurity or imperfection. And how could there be such work before those eyes, to which not even the stars are clean enough [Job 25:5], nor the angels righteous enough [Job 4:18]? Thus he shall be compelled to admit that no good work exists which is not so defiled both with attendant transgressions and with its own corruption that it cannot bear the honorable name of righteousness. But if, of a certainty, it follows from justification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy of God’s sight, not to mention his love, are accounted righteousness, why do they by boasting of works righteousness try to destroy justification of faith, without whose existence they would boast of such righteousness in vain?
Calvin goes on to say, “Do they wish to spawn a viper’s brood? The statements of the impious tend in this direction. They cannot deny that justification of faith is the beginning, foundation, cause, proof, and substance of works righteousness. Nevertheless, they conclude that man is not justified by faith, because good works are also accounted righteousness.â€
It looks like Steven Coxhead, had he read Calvin a bit more carefully, might have seen the viper’s brood that he was spawning in his article by beclouding justification by faith alone. Why those responsible for the WTJ would give a hearing to an Old Testament scholar trying to do historical theology is a mystery. Hasn’t the school had enough trouble of late?
Another Part of the Conn-versation
From Harvie Conn, “A Church with a Message,†Presbyterian Guardian, Jan. 1958
Our Church has too many faults. Seminary professors, and students have long been pointing them out. But with all her faults, I love her still. As a new year rolls around, I’m thankful to be a minister of God’s pure gospel in her fold. As a minister upholding her ways, there is at least a message I may bring. As Machen put it to beautifully, many years ago, at the beginning of the conflict that still rages, “Whatever be the limitations of your gifts, you will at least have a message. You will be, in one respect at least, unlike most persons who love to talk in public at the present time; you will have one qualification of a speaker – you will have something to say.†Find the hungry heart that needs such a message, and then you will have your chance. “While angels look on, you will have your moment of glorious opportunity – the moment when you can speak the word that God has given you to speak. It will be a word of warning; false hopes must be ruthlessly destroyed. But it will also be a word of wondrous joy. What can be compared, brethren, to the privilege of proclaiming to needy souls the exuberant joy of the gospel of Christ?†For that gospel, that good news, that announcement of truth, and not opinion, I give thanks this year.
Rob Bell on, you know, "The Healing Thing"
Christianity Today recently interviewed Rob Bell, the pastor responsible for taking emergent Christianity to the New Jerusalem of North American neo-Calvinism. Among the different questions and answers was this exchange:
You say, “Jesus wants to save us from making the Good News about another world and not this one.” What do you mean?
The story is about God’s intentions to bring about a new heaven and a new earth, and the story begins here with shalom—shalom between each other and with our Maker and with the earth. The story line is that God intends to bring about a new creation, this place, this new heaven and earth here. And that Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning, essentially, of the future; this great Resurrection has rushed into the present.
The evacuation theology that says, “figure out the ticket, say the right prayer, get the right formula, and then we’ll go somewhere else” is lethal to Jesus, who endlessly speaks of the renewal of all things.
All well and good, but how is this good news to people with no earthly hope? If I’m dying of aids or cancer, I probably don’t give a rip about the renewal of all things. I want to know if my sins are forgiven, and when I die, if am I going to see Jesus or not.
Yes, and I would say that central to that new creation is the problem with the first creation—death. The Resurrection is about God dealing with the death problem. And central to this giant cosmic hope is a very intimate, yes, you can trust this Jesus. You can trust this new creation. You can trust being with him when you die, when you leave this life, however you want to put it. Yes, there is an intensely personal dimension to this giant story that you and I get to be a part of.
And neo-Calvinists wonder why two-kingdom folks are worried about blurring distinctions between creation and redemption, between Christ’s Lordship as creator and his rule as mediator, between this world and the world to come?
This is not to say that neo-Calvinists are saying the same thing as Rob Bell. But what is the difference substantially, that Bell hasn’t met enough Dutch folk to be able to pronounce Dooeyweerd?
Winding the Theonomists Up
Over at First Principles, Lynn Robinson has a good review essay of a new IVP book by Greg Foster, The Contested Public Square: The Crisis of Christianity and Politics. Robinson quotes Foster to good effect about the political theology of the New Testament (or the lack thereof):
Almost the only political teaching it provides is that a person’s ordinary political duties (behaving peacefully, obeying the law, paying taxes, etc.) continue to apply when rulers deny God and persecute believers. . . . The New Testament’s silence on politics combined with the apostles’ setting aside the political order of the Old Testament leaves the faithful with no revelatory instruction as to how their political affairs are to be ordered.
Why is this so hard to understand? I guess the one consolation for theonomists, whether soft or hard, is the support they get from the good bishop Tom Wright who interprets the Lordship of Christ in ways remarkably similar to our politically challenged friends.
Carl Gets the Last Word?
And makes a very good point about ecclesiology, as opposed to sexual misconduct, along the way.
No presbytery just wakes up one morning and, out of the blue, declares `I’m going to ordain a practising homosexual today.’ As every presbyterian knows, our church courts change very, very slowly. So the question to ask is: how did the C of S come to such a pass? The answer, in part (and I stress ‘in part’ — I am interested here only in the evangelical dimension), lies with the policy of William Still and his followers, which was essentially built on the notion that the courts of the church could be conceded to the liberals as long as the evangelicals were allowed to keep preaching the gospel from their own pulpits. This was the very antithesis of the Southern Baptist policy and ironically, meant that, while the baptists acted like quasi-presbyterians, the Stillites acted like Independents.
The policy worked well for the big C of S churches — e.g. the Tron, Gilcomston South, Holyrood — who were large enough to keep the hawks from George Street at bay; what it meant, however, was that the smaller churches, the anonymous evangelical pastors, and the lowly ministerial students candidates frequently came under huge pressure from presbyteries. Since my first post, I have heard from one old friend who, as a student, was roasted in a presbytery on the gay issue while the evangelicals present literally sat in silence; another who was told by an evangelical leader to ordain a woman elder against his conscience because women’s ordination was not the hill to die on. Both have since left the C of S, at considerable personal hardship.
Between a Millstone and a Mandate
Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.” In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.” (“Secular” is to “secularism” what “behavior” is to “behaviorism” or what “material” is to “materialism.”)
In his most recent articles, Dr. K. has taken a detour into the subject of Christian schooling (though the skeptic might wonder if Kloosterman determined to go after two kingdom theology specifically to score points in current debates within the URC about requirements for church officers to support and send their children to Christian day schools). Three of the articles in what is so far a fourteen-part series in this interlude on Christian education are called, “Mandate or Millstone: The URC and Christian Education.” Continue reading “Between a Millstone and a Mandate”
Ref21 Food Fight
Carl Trueman continues to wonder about the advisability of singling out homosexuality in the Church of Scotland.  “Apparently, this man left his wife and children to pursue his homosexual relationship. If true, he is an adulterer. That he is a gay adulterer compounds the issue but does not define it. Again, like a one string banjo, I hit the same note: if the church is to avoid simply looking (and, frankly, being) homophobic, then it cannot afford to single out homosexuality as the key sin above all sins, while turning a blind eye to other matters. ”
Phil Ryken wonders about the wisdom of Carl’s wondering.  Among the reasons he gives, Ryken worries about the effects of a defeat in Scotland for churches elsewhere. “I also believe that a defeat on this issue in the Church of Scotland inevitably weakens the hand of other churches in other countries that will seek in coming years to defend biblical standards of sexuality from a secular political onslaught. Only today the Associated Press is reporting that growing support for gay unions is changing the political landscape in America. I expect that in time this change will lead to hardship and persecution for Christian churches and schools across America. Thus it is important for evangelicals to stand together on homosexuality and everything else associated with a consistently biblical ethic for human sexuality.” Continue reading “Ref21 Food Fight”
Old Life 