Who adminsters baptism?

Probably one of the biggest questions to ask about baptism is:

• Is baptism primarily an act of, or upon, the person baptised?

Interesting to hear what a Baptist scholar may say about that based on the evidence...

Some Jewish groups practised 'proselyte baptism', i.e. proselytes were baptized in the process of converting to Judaism. In the monastic community at Qumram, members invoked passages such as Ezekiel 36:25 to justify their daily baptism... But in both instances baptism was self-administered. Candidates baptized themselves... One of the things that characterized the baptism of John the Baptist is that he himself administered it. It may even be that the authority implicit in such an innovative step triggered the assumption in the minds of at least some Pharisees that John's baptism was an end-time rite administered by an end-time figure with great authority.

(italics original, p.145, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John)

Carson notices that if baptism is primarily something done by one with authority to the person baptised there is a secondary question of who has such authority. John Calvin suggests an answer in commenting on John 4:2 where the Evangelist says that Jesus baptised, and yet also clarifies that it was only his disciples who did the action:

He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God.

PS I am sorry. I know that Christmas Eve is probably not the time to riding one of my hobby-horses.

Christ in all the scriptures

For what still sublimer thing can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals have been broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher (Matt. 27:66; 28:2), and the supreme mystery brought to light, namely that Christ the Son of God has been made man, that God is three and one, that Christ has suffered for us and is to reign eternally? Are not these things known and sung even in the highways and byways? Take Christ our of the Scriptures, and what will you find left in them?

(p. 110, Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will)

John Calvin picks up the baton and shows how that works out:

He is Isaac, the beloved Son of the Father who was offered as a sacrifice, but nevertheless did not succumb to the power of death.

He is Jacob the watchful shepherd who has such great care for the sheep which he guards.

He is the good and compassionate brother Joseph, who in his glory was not ashamed to acknowledge his brothers, however lowly their condition.

He is the great sacrificer and bishop Melchizedek, who has offered an eternal sacrifice once for all.

He is the sovereign lawgiver Moses, writing His law on the tables of our hearts by His Spirit.

He is the faithful captain and guide Joshua, to lead us to the Promised Land.

He is the victorious and noble king David, bringing by His hand all rebellious power to subjection.

He is the magnificent and triumphant king Solomon, governing His kingdom in peace and prosperity.

He is the strong and powerful Samson, who by His death has overwhelmed all His enemies.

(p. 69, John Calvin, Preface to Olivetan’s New Testament)

Tim Keller said something similar here.

What was all the fuss about?

"All our controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate worship of God, or to the ground of salvation.”

(John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, HT Shane Lems)

I was so pleased to find this quote. I have long thought that if I was ever to explain the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed Reformations it would be to explain the Lutherans were concerned with salvation, and the Reformed with both salvation and right worship.

I think the distinction between their heirs today may be different.

Calvin and Luther's anthropology of the Christian

Some interesting selections from Mark Seifrid's article "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel" that relate to discussions among some blogs about whether we are simul iustus et peccator (e.g. here and here). I've collected some links to Mark Seifrid articles here.

In such passages as Gal 5:17-26, "flesh" and "Spirit" do not appear there as capacities or qualities of a unified human person, but two different descriptions of the whole person. The old, fallen human being in Adam exists along with the new creation that God has made us to be in Jesus Christ. We must hasten to add that the relationship between the two is unequal. Our sinful self, which is incapable of faith and obedience to God, has been crucified with Christ (see, e.g., Gal 5:24-26; Rom 8:7-8). Although our fallen person, "the flesh," remains present until the end of our earthly life (Rom 7:24), that fallen existence is present now only as a conquered reality. [...]

The Christian life consists in our "putting to death" our former self [i.e. us as "sinner"] by our new self [i.e. us as "saint"], present in the Spirit who dwells in us (Rom 8:12-14; Gal 5:16-17).

As is the case with Scripture and our understanding of God, so it is with us for Luther: the unity of our person lies outside of us in Jesus Christ. We grasp it now by faith, but it is only in the resurrection that it shall become visible. Calvin regards regeneration to effect a new state within the human being, which is partially present and active. The "flesh" likewise is present as a power that exerts partial influence on us. [...] Luther, as we have seen, finds a radically different anthropology in Scripture. The old, fallen creature exists as a whole alongside the new creature, who is likewise a whole.

Christ's descent into hell

Listening to: Sibelius: Symphony No.5

"He descended into hell" (or "He descended to the dead") is an article of the creed that most people I know don't know what to do with. As a result some people just brush it off as nonsense and further proof that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the ecumenical creeds.

I think we ought to give our forerunners the benefit of the doubt whenever we can, but I'm not sure what to do with it myself.

The writers of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, saw two broad categories of interpretation, and because argument between the two were getting quite heated they judged that "there should be no dispute over this issue but it should be believed and taught on the simplest level". They explained that people disputed "whether this article of faith belongs to the suffering of Christ or to his glorious victory and triumph." I must confess that I was only aware of it belonging in some form to Christ's suffering.

1. Belonging to the suffering of Christ

John Calvin argues that the phrase refers to the depths of the suffering that Jesus suffered on the cross for us:

"subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God." (Institutes 2.16.10)

2. Belonging to the victory of Christ

Luther read the article more in connection with Christ's resurrection than his death:

"The customary way of depicting how Christ descended into hell on church walls represents him with a cape and with banners in his hand as he makes his descent and stalks and assaults the devil, as he storms hell and rescues his own people from it. The children's play presented at Easter depicts it in a similar way. It seems better to me that you depict, act out, sing, and recite the story in a very simple way and let it remain at that and not concern yourself with sublime and precise ideas about how it actually took place. for it did not happen in a physical manner, since he remained three days in the grave." (p. 159, cited in Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula For Parish Practice)

Judas and Peter

A friend asked what the difference between Judas and Peter was given that both deserted Jesus, but one hung himself and the other became a pillar of the church.

The short answer is the unmerited grace of God, but was there any difference in their actions?

I promised I'd email some quotes from the Reformers for him. Here they are for what it's worth.

They [i.e. the Roman Catholics] teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments. Is not this teaching uncertain and improper things concerning repentance? When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake out of love it fears God, as its God, or is fleeing from eternal punishments? These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words. These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men who also desire to know the truth. They undoubtedly will confess that these discussions in the writings of the adversaries are very confused and intricate. And nevertheless the most important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel, the remission of sins. This entire doctrine concerning these questions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of the adversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefit of Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith to inexpressible injury of conscience [...]

faith [in Christ] shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ's sake.

(Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII (V): Of Repentance)

They [e.g. Philip Melanchthon] give Cain, Saul and Judas, as examples of legal repentance. Scripture, in describing what is called their repentance, means that they perceived the heinousness of their sins, and dreaded the divine anger; but, thinking only of God as a judge and avenger, were overwhelmed by the thought. Their repentance, therefore, was nothing better than a kind of threshold to hell, into which having entered even in the present life, they began to endure the punishment inflicted by the presence of an offended God. Examples of evangelical repentance we see in all those who, first stung with a sense of sin, but afterwards raised and revived by confidence in the divine mercy, turned unto the Lord. Hezekiah was frightened on receiving the message of his death, but praying with tears, and beholding the divine goodness, regained his confidence. The Ninevites were terrified at the fearful announcement of their destruction; but clothing themselves in sackcloth and ashes, they prayed, hoping that the Lord might relent and avert his anger from them. David confessed that he had sinned greatly in numbering the people, but added "Now, I beseech thee O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant." When rebuked by Nathan, he acknowledged the crime of adultery, and humbled himself before the Lord; but he, at the same time, looked for pardon. Similar was the repentance of those who, stung to the heart by the preaching of Peter, yet trusted in the divine goodness, and added, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Similar was the case of Peter himself, who indeed wept bitterly, but ceased not to hope...Though all this is true, yet the term repentance (in so far as I can ascertain from Scripture) must be differently taken [Calvin was much more concerned with words in systematics corresponding with the biblical usage].

(John Calvin, Institutes 3.3.4-5)

The formal and material principles

Philip Schaff defines the formal and material principles of the Reformation thus:

the material of life principle (principium essendi) of the Reformation [...] is no other than the great doctrine, which is presented by Paul especially as the entire sum of the gospel - the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God by the merit of Christ alone through faith [...]

the formal or knowledge principle [...] consists in this, that the word of God, as it has been handed down to us in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the pure and proper source as well as the only certain measure of all saving truth.

(italics original, p.80-98, The Principle of Protestantism)

Martin Luther may be everyone's go-to guy for the material principle, but would we point to the person who called James an 'epistle of straw' as a great exponent of the formal principle? A lot could be written about Luther's doctrine of Scripture, but I think Oswald Bayer gets to the heart of why Luther doesn't fit into the standard neat distinction of formal and material principles. For Luther the 'authority of Scripture is not formal but is highly material and is content driven' (p.69, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation). This means that we don't follow a two step plan to knowing the truth of God:

• Step 1: Establish source of revelation
• Step 2: From that source derive knowledge of God and how we relate to him

This is the way that many Protestant confessions seem to proceed (at least post-Reformation), and it is the way many systematic theologies are organised. Oswald Bayer certainly does not like to do things that way though:

one does not arrive at the solution to the question [of the authority of Scripture] "in the passionless calm of a knowledge which is in the element of pure thought alone" [Hegel]; instead, it includes a change in the existence of the reader and interpreter. The Holy Scripture verifies itself, in that it awakens faith. As has been stated already, it does not work for one to take the so-called scriptural principle and try to differentiate between a "Protestant formal principle" and a "Protestant material principle," which states the teaching about justification; one certainly ought not to treat them as separate. Both are one and the same: wrapped up in the event that takes place when the righteousness of God is actually given as a gift, at the moment the promissio is articulated, one encounters the authority of Scripture, its efficacy and clarity - its ability to enlighten - as well as its sufficiency: its power to bring one to salvation - if indeed Scriputure is given "for the salvation" of human beings (2 Tim. 3:15). The question about the significance of the reformational turning point in Luther's theology and the question about Luther's understanding of biblical authority are the same; they are one and the same question.

(p.75-76, ibid)

I think this is related to what Mike Reeves is getting at when he says when you treat revelation as 'the ladder to get you up into the actual playroom of Christian theology, you tend to treat revelation and scripture in a non-Christian way because it is outside the room' (beginning of talk 2 here). Mike Reeves concern here is with the relation between Christology and revelation, but one thing I have begun to see lately is that Christology, revelation and salvation are all so bound up together that you cannot really separate them without doing some serious harm. John Calvin's Geneva Catechism, 1541, exemplifies that:

1. Minister. What is the chief end of human life?

Child. To know God

[...how do we know?...]

C. By His Word, in which He declares His mercy to us in Christ, and assures us of His love toward us

14. M. Then the foundation for true reliance upon God is to know Him in Jesus Christ (John 17:3)?

C. That is true

(pp.5-7, Trans. and ed. TF Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church - that is the beginning and end of the introduction section prior to the section on the Apostles Creed)

This may seem to be the height of obscure theological discussion, but if you think that just meditate a while on what this means for how you try and witness to the truth of the Gospel to non-Christians.

Calvin on the Gospel

Tullian Tchividjian reprints a beautiful portion of John Calvin's preface to Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French translation of the New Testament (1534).

Without the gospel

everything is useless and vain;

without the gospel

we are not Christians;

without the gospel

all riches is poverty,
all wisdom folly before God;
strength is weakness,
and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God.

But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made

children of God,
brothers of Jesus Christ,
fellow townsmen with the saints,
citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven,
heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom

the poor are made rich,
the weak strong,
the fools wise,
the sinner justified,
the desolate comforted,
the doubting sure,
and slaves free.

The really helpful indentation was done by Justin Taylor and you can read more of it on his blog. Or read the whole thing at Google Books. It is incredible. Apparently the first thing Calvin wrote as a Protestant (in 1534). Seriously, it is absolute gold!

The purposes of sacraments

Philip Melanchthon lists (he is great at lists) the following purposes of the sacraments:

1. 'they are signs of God's will toward us, or testimonies of promised grace'
2. 'confession' of what we believe
3. 'distinction from other groups'
4. 'so that [God's] name might be celebrated and doctrine spread'
5. 'a reminder of many obligations. First of giving thanks to God, then of mutual kindness of members of the church'

However, as I've already quoted:

although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace

(p. 139, Loci Communes (1543))

This is not an example of the Reformers being unable to escape from Catholicism, but of them listening to Scripture:

Jewish baptism was political and ritualistic, whereas John's baptism was ethical and eschatological (similar to Ps 51:7; Is 1:15-16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1). Gramatically there is an important distinction to be observed. The NT uses active and passive (primarily) forms of bapto and baptizo, while texts referring to Jewish proselyte baptism primarily employ middle or reflexive forms (Oepke, 530-35). Thus what was self-administered in Judaism was seen more as an act of God and surrender to him in early Christianity.

(p. 97, G Beasley-Murray, "Baptism I: Gospels" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

FYI, Calvin isn't quite as good as Melancthon at clearly ordering the purposes although he is better than most Protestants today:

[a sacrament] is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. (Insitutes 4.14.1)

Worms just a little lower than the angels

Chris Oldfield comments that "the gospel dignifies who we are by calling us into question."

Few people I have read calls humanity to question more than John Calvin. Marilynne Robinson (Pulitzer Prize winning novelist) observes that the extreme disparagements of humanity under sin by theologians such as Calvin comes from an understanding that we have dignity as creatures made just a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5).

Cauvin [Calvin] employs a characteristic language [...] including extreme disparagements of the physical body, and more generally of humankind under the aspect of sin or fallenness. [This is done] in the service of an extraordinarily exalted vision of the human soul. It is a form of hyperbole - purity is corruption, pleasure is illusion, wisdom is folly, virtue is depravity, by comparison with the holiness that can be imagined, not as the nature of God only, but as the nature of humankind also [...]

The self-abnegation that is always the condition of a true perception of the self or of God can only be understood as the rigorous imagination of a higher self. This is more complex than it sounds. Cauvin has an unsettling habit of referring to himself or to any other human being as a "worm." [Understood as a reference to Psalm 22] the word describes temporal estrangement from God and at the same time ultimate identity with Christ. In context it is the farthest thing from a term of contempt.

(pp. 182-183, The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought)

Thank you Steve for lending me that book all those years ago.

The sole and proper witness of God

'God himself is the sole and proper witness of himself' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.11.1)

'He who we can know only through his own utterances is a fitting witness concerning himself' (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity I, xviii)

I'm re-reading Calvin's Institutes this year. A little way in I'm thinking that I need to do some reflection on what I'm learning from it.

Perhaps the thing I'm most struck by so far is Calvin's determination to let God describe who God is. I am perhaps more aware of this because of reading a little Karl Barth recently, but it is great seeing that conviction that God is the proper witness of himself worked out in Calvin's explanation of what God is like.

Viewing the church with the eyes of faith

Martin Luther writes:

This article, "I believe in the holy Christian Church," is as much an article of faith as the rest. This is why natural reason cannot recognize it, even if it puts on all its glasses. The devil can cover it over with offences and divisions, so that you have to take offence at it. God too can conceal it behind faults and shortcomings of all kinds so that you necessarily become a fool and pass false judgment on it. Christendom will not be known by sight, but by faith. And faith has to do with things not seen

("Preface to the Revelation of St. John [II]" (1546), in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 410)

This connects with the Magisterial Reformers understanding of the marks of the church. Calvin writes:

Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20)

[...]

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God.

(Institutes 4.1.9-10)

The reason that the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments were identified as marks of the church was because of faith that these would not be without effect. God had promised that his word would not go forth without achieving his aim, so that must be the case. We may see evidence to contradict this but we have faith in God and his promises.

I need to do some thinking on how this relates to the renewed interest in the church as community. We are rediscovering that we are not independent souls that do not need each other but were saved as a body. However, this seems to be happening while we at the same time we judge that the Church is something we can define, see and touch. Today we rarely hear about the Reformers' marks of the Church, although we often hear about the mark being love.

I see both viewpoints as true to the Bible and experience, but I am concerned that I don't know how to relate them to each other. I suspect it has to do with eschatology.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Random facts about Calvin and Calvinism

I found them interesting. But then perhaps I ought to get our more.

1. 'Archbishop William Whitgift whose distaste for Puritanism was legendary, remained a staunch Cavinist in his views on predestination, as the Lambeth Articles of 1595 amply demonstrate' (p.4).
2. 'Calvin regarded Zwingli as a second-rate theologian and ridiculed the esteem in which he was held at Zurich. though Calvin read and cited Zwingli's important treatise, the Commentary on True and False Religion, he confessed that he was put off by Zwingli's reliance on philosophy, he excessive use of paradox, and his confusion of the universal concerns of the gospel with the parochial interests of the Swiss' (p.173)
3. Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession while at the Regensburg Colloquy in 1541 (p. 172).
4. Relying 'only upon the index of the Corpus Reformatorum as a guide to Calvin's knowledge of the Fathers, one would conclude that Calvin referred in his commentaries on the new Testament to Chrysostom 105 times, to Augustine 101, to Jerome 38, to Ambrose 23, and to Ambrosiaster not at all' (p. 135).
5. 'Calvin does not use the Fathers in the way a medieval commentator used his ancient authorities. The Father's are not cited by Calvin in his exegesis of Romans 8 because he agrees with them and needs their authority their authority to strengthen his argument [...] in every case, explicit and anonymous, in which Calvin has referred to Patristic exegesis, he has quarreled with it. One ought not to make too much of this quarrel. After all, as we have already seen, there is a wide range of issues on which Calvin is in complete agreement with the Fathers. [...] Calvin, after all, is writing a commentary on Paul, not on Origen or chrysostom or Augustine or Ambrosiaster. Calvin keeps his pages as uncluttered as possible because it is Paul himself and not the commentators he wants to interpret' (p. 136)

All page references are to Calvin in Context by David Steinmetz.

2 questions

1. What shall we do with the sudden declaring of all foods clean in the New Covenant? That's what I am thinking about at the moment as my Bible reading plan takes me through Leviticus (when I bother to follow it). And what does that teach us about the Gospel? Incidentally I am a little sceptical of the use of David Field's word studying in Romans just because I think uncleanness is a really important. How can we accept that because the word 'law' does not appear after Romans 13:10 that we don't have to fit Romans 14 (on vegetables) into our reasoning.
2. What did Calvin base the structure of his 1559 Institutes on? The Creed (as Mike Reeves in his great talks on Calvin suggests along with others such as TF Torrance) or Romans (as JI Packer says)? Or is this just the universal structure of great theology, seeing as it also appears quite Trinitarian? But most important of all... am I just too much of geek because these sorts of things nag at me?

Anyhow, I am so rushed of my feet this week that is the best I can manage for a post. Sorry.

Calvin the evangelist

UCCF's Theology Network is up and running. Lots for me to enjoy exploring in coming weeks.

Interestingly part of the inspiration for setting it up seems to be John Calvin's evangelistic work (sadly much ignored usually):

In 1555, based in Geneva, John Calvin established a top secret programme for the evangelisation of his native France. Using an underground network, with safe houses and hiding places, he slipped agents of the gospel across the border into France to plant new (sometimes literally) underground churches. Its success was astounding: the evangelical faith exploded in both numbers and influence in France. More than 10% of the entire population became Protestant, including something like a third of the nobility. Geneva became a nerve-centre for world evangelisation as missionaries were dispatched from Geneva to Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, and even South America. [read more]

This reminded me of something else I had recently read about his few years in Strasbourg at an earlier time:

He placed great importance on fostering the independence of individual members, on kindling and promoting faith in each of them, and on having them assume their individual responsibility for the congregation. Intensive Bible study and a strict church discipline were the means he used to reach these goals. Calvin also succeeded in winning back a remarkable number of Anabaptists to the Protestant fold. It is no coincidence that he entered his name in the membership list of the tailors' guild on July 29, 1539 - a guild known for the many Anabaptists and their sympathizers in its midst. The woman whom Calvin married in Strasbourg, Idelette de Bure, was the wido of an Anabaptist he himself had converted.

(pp. 147f; Greschat, Martin; Martin Bucer: A reformer and his Times)

Of course not everyone might agree that the Anabaptists needed converting :)

A marking post on my journey in Trinitarian Theology

[A comment of mine on Dan Hames' blog]

Hello everyone,

I thought I best account for my absence in case it appear rude especially as I am really thankful for this conversation.

Unfortunately I have had not more than 30min at a computer at any one time for the last week (except at work) and I have been given so much to think about that I can't possibly respond properly without a couple of hours! Nevertheless I have not stopped thinking about what has been discussed and I have been able to read things and listen to lectures on my commute, which has been amazing.

In case any of you cared where I am in my journey through Trinitarian Theology, I thought I would do a summary for myself more than anything. But seeing as it has been formed in conversation with you all (esp. Dan and Glen – not because Martin and Paul don’t have good things to say but because they were there first and there when I had the time to read properly) I thought I would post it in a comment here.

0. God is definitely revealed and Glen was right to pick me up on where my rash comments led, but that doesn't mean that he is fully revealed. However I still think that God is primarily (I think I was wrong to say 'only') revealed in relation to creation, and particularly in our redemption.

1. I’m still not convinced that the Trinity is revealed in the OT in the way in which Glen appears to think it is. So many other people have made the argument better than me that I won’t dwell here.

2. I do think the Trinity is revealed in the OT but not because there are plurals in the names of God, an Angel of YHWH, Wisdom of God etc but because the Trinity is revealed in the unity of God too, just as the Trinity is revealed in the one Son so it can be revealed in the one Elohim.

3. Augustine is getting a horribly rough deal. I think he took into account the three much more he has been given credit for in recent discussion. I also have noted that: (i) some seem to think that he was much less neo-platonic on the Trinity than he has Glen and Dan say (ii) he was combating genuine concerns that were as real as the concerns of Glen and Dan (iii) On his book on the Trinity he spends the first third of the book in the Scriptures before moving on to Philosophy (iv) 'substance' was not 'stuff' for him. In all these things I can't help thinking that Augustine is a hook to hang the faults of the worst of post-Enlightenment Protestantism, much as Tom Wright hangs many of the faults of the worst of Evangelicalism on Luther.

4. I have been reading quite a few creeds and catechisms recently and the Apostles/Nicene creed are remarkably focused on the three - as in fact they are remarkably focused on history and the church.

5. Dan and Glen's thoughts about what makes the Trinity one make remarkable sense logically.

6. They also make remarkable sense of the bible’s own discussion about unity in married couples and the church. - incidentally it would be interesting to read something about the connection between monks and celibacy and conceptions of the Trinity. It is striking that whereas Augustine does go to Gen 1:26-27 to learn of the Trinity in the Trinity's image (apparently he was one of the first to do so) he focuses on the individual that is in the image of God and not the couple ('in the image of God...he created them').

7. This MP3 by Mike Ovey on the inseparable operation of the members of the trinity is the highlight of my listening/reading so far (other than this blog of course). It would be worth listening to while bearing in mind Glen's helpful post.

8. In the light of Mike Ovey's talk I wonder what Dan and Glen would do with: "whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." Although something similar could be said of the perfect human relationship this is a quantum leap in magnitude.

9. Is "God is love" any more important than "God is true" "God is spirit" "God is faithful" etc or even "God is a consuming fire". In which case does Augustine have a thought when he says "For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God" and goes on to identify the Holy Spirit as love because he is a gift. Again we have come round to God’s revelation in relation to his creation and not primarily in himself.

10. So I’m still wondering: How bound to the creation is the revelation of God? The Word of God is a title which begs the question 'Word to who?'. Similarly Father and Son all could be related firstly to God's relationship to his people before to intra-Trinitarian discussion. As Calvin says on John 17:24 which Glen brought up earlier:

"This also agrees better with the person of the Mediator than with Christ’s Divinity alone. It would be harsh to say that the Father loved his Wisdom; and though we were to admit it, the connection of the passage leads us to a different view. Christ, unquestionably, spoke as the Head of the Church, when he formerly prayed that the apostles might be united with him, and might behold the glory of his reign. He now says that the love of the Father is the cause of it; and, therefore, it follows that he was beloved, in so far as he was appointed to be the Redeemer of the world. With such a love did the Father love him before the creation of the world, that he might be the person in whom the Father would love his elect."

Reminds me of Ephesians: “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”. After all ‘Son of God’ was a title for Israel and her king first in the bible. Father was a title for Israel’s God before it was Jesus’ name for the first person of the Trinity. Although this is a facile discussion in some sense as God is the creator of time. Nevertheless he identified with us, and we identify with him – which came first (1 John says the former)?

11. Praise God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that all three in unity chose to bring me into that community to their own glory!

Quotable: Trinitarian theology from the masters

'that pasage in Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me: "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to thhe one."' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.13.17)

'Sometimes, indeed, [the ancients] teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son; sometimes they declare that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and thus has one beginning with the Father. Augustine well and clearly expresses the cause of this diversity in another place, when he speaks as follows: "Christ with respect to himself is called God; with respect to the Father, Son. Again, the Father with respect to himself is called God; with respect to the Son, Father. In so far as he is called Father with respect to the Son, he is not the Son; in so far as he is called both Father with respect to himself, and Son with respect to himself, he is the same God." [...] Indeed, it is far safer to stop with that relation which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations.' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.13.19)

Quotable: Calvin on Justification

faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause "without works" is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true, since faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead, and a mere fiction. He who is born of God is just, as John says. (1Jo 5:18.) Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only begotten Son.

(Commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17)

Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails,—But as the principle which he adopts is like a cuttlefish, which, casting out its blood, which is black as ink, troubles the water all around, to hide a great multitude of tails. if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle’s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

(Institutes 3.11.6)

Yet more on justification

I'm still thinking about justification a lot trying to get things straight. I've still got some reading to go. I've just started Justified in Christ which is promising looking collection of essays. Sinclair Ferguson wrote the introduction and seemingly contradicts the viewpoint of Bill Dumbrell which I quoted in the first post documenting my 'quest'. Sinclair Freguson says that:

[For Tom Wright and Jim Dunn] when Paul speaks about justification he is not in fact talking about "the way in" but describing [I think they would say 'declaring'] the status of those already in [... in contrast] evangelicalism has always maintained that the "way in" is justification by faith.

I don't know what to make of this. I would presume that if you think justification is 'forensic' (as Ferguson does) then the natural understanding would be that it is declarative. So the question is when does this justification happen? - in the past (around the time of the new birth) or about the time of the bodily resurrection? But, is this is a false question.?Can it not be both? We are justified 'in Christ' and specifically in his resurrection (cf. Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16). When do we participate in Christ's resurrection? In part following our new birth and fully when Christ comes again. Wright probably focuses too much on the justification of the church in the eyes of the world and so looks almost (perhaps only) to the future. However I don't think it can be an either/or, it is a past(in Christ), present (in the breaking in of Christ's life in new birth), and future (in the raising of the dead) event.

But Ferguson is also suggesting that justification occurs before salvation, and the quotation from Calvin on the cover says the same:

those who were lost have their sins buried and are justified before God, because, as he hates sin, he can love only those whom he has justified.

But what does Paul have to say? Here are a few verses that may help:

'as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.' (Rom 5:18)

'And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.' (Rom 8:30)

'For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.' (Rom 10:10)

'so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' (Titus 3:7)

It is clear that justification and salvation/glorification/life are all so wrapped up together so as to be inseparable which seems to make this discussion seem slightly pointless (and after reading Seifrid I now recognise that the reason for much of the theological hair-spliting is because what God is doing is being downplayed at the expense of a human perspective of what is happening with us). Romans 8:30 is particularly interesting though. According to Don Carson 'calling' in Paul means 'effective calling' not just the free offer of the gospel. Therefore, justification happens between new birth and glory. So after you are through the doorway but before the mud has been shaken from your feet and you have been given some clean clothes (although that's only the best of a bad load of illustrations).

Through all of my thinking on this issue though I am sure of one thing. It is God who justifies and our concern should not be the seeking of justification as an abstract thing - and sadly it is sometimes put forward in that way. Our concern should be hearing the word and responding with faith. Our concern is that the gospel that 'Jesus is Lord' is declared and God is made known for his mercy and his judgment. As Seifrid says, first and foremost it is God that is justified in our justification and it is God's justification that ought to be our obsession and delight. Let us not seek to be justified (and if we are seeking justification by our faith then we are turning faith into a work I believe) but seek God and his glory (in which we participate when we are glorified - like everything it is not something that we own but something we share in as we share in Christ).

So those are my preliminary conclusions at this juncture. I hope I've expressed them well.

PS on related matters Piper's forthcoming book on Tom Wright's doctrine of justification is forthcoming and getting very positive reviews from some sensible people (the latest is here). I'm really thankful to God because his last foray on imputed righteousness was a an awful piece of writing. I read the book before it was published in the UK because I was looking forward to it so much but he was out of his depth and it showed. In focusing in narrowly on Tom Wright alone, and putting in the hours seems to have paid off this time. If anyone can be trusted to put God's glory at the centre in a discussion justification it must be John Piper.