Protestant Reformed Seminary
|
In This Issue:
Editor's Notes
Setting In Order The Things That Are Wanting (6)
Robert D. Decker
A Comparison of Exegesis: John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas
(2)
Russell J. Dykstra
The Serious Call of the Gospel - Is the Well-meant Offer
of Salvation a Serious Call? (3)
Lau Chin Kwee
The Place of the Mystical Union in Reformed Soteriology
Christopher J. Connors
In the Space of Six Days (1)
Mark L. Shand
Book Reviews
During the first two weeks of July 2002, Rev. Ronald Cammenga, pastor of the Southwest Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan, the undersigned, and their wives were in Brisbane, Australia representing the Protestant Reformed Churches at a conference sponsored by the Evangelical Reformed Church of Australia. A number of worthwhile papers were presented at this conference. In this issue we are publishing the last installment of Pastor Lau Chin Kwee's paper, The Serious Call of the Gospel, which paper he presented at the Conference. We also publish in full Rev. Christopher J. Connors' paper and the first installment of one of the two papers the Rev. Mark L. Shand presented at the conference. In future issues we hope to publish all of the papers presented and discussed at this very profitable, edifying conference held in that beautiful part of God's creation called "down-under." Though the reader lacks the give and take of the discussions that we enjoyed after each paper was read, we believe he/she will be blessed by these insightful studies.
Professor Dykstra gives the second installment of his series comparing the exegesis of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas. The professor points out that these giants part ways on the place and authority of the church in exegesis. Aquinas' purpose in exegesis was to defend the dogmas of the Church (Roman Catholic), while Calvin's purpose in writing his commentaries was to stimulate as much use of the Bible by the common people as possible. In this way, Calvin sought to edify the church by his exegetical work. Prof. Dykstra concludes this installment by commenting on the method and style of the exegesis of these men.
Undersigned continues his exposition of the Epistle to Titus.
Setting in Order the Things That Are Wanting
An Exposition of
Paul's Epistle to Titus (6)
Robert D. Decker
Once more we remind the reader that this exposition of the Epistle to Titus was originally given in the form of "chapel talks" by the author during the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services at the seminary. The author began the exposition in the 1997-1998 school year and completed the series during the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year. The exposition is being published in the Journal with the hope that it will prove helpful to a wider audience of the people of God in their study of this brief letter in the sacred Scriptures. So that both those able to work with the Greek language and those unable to do so may benefit from this study, all references to the Greek will be placed in footnotes. The translation of the Greek text is the author's. We present this exposition pretty much as it was spoken in the chapel services, application and all. Perhaps this will help the reader gain some insight into what goes on in the seminary.
This installment is a bit more brief than those in preceding issues
because we have at the moment quite a surplus of copy. A nice problem for an editor to
have, I might add. For this reason I conclude somewhat arbitrarily with verse ten.
Chapter Two
Verse 6
The younger men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
It may appear at first glance that Scripture has very little to say to the young men of the church. The inspired apostle has just finished rather detailed exhortations regarding the callings and responsibilities of the aged men and especially of the aged women in the church. Now, in verse six, there is just one brief exhortation to the young men. This, however, is not the case, as is evident from the Holy Spirit's use of "likewise"1 (the A. V.'s translation), or "in the same manner." In other words, just as Titus must in his preaching and teaching exhort the aged men, the aged women, and the younger women, so in that same manner must he exhort the younger men. This means, therefore, that the younger men must be exhorted to be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. Their behavior, too, must be in harmony with holiness and all the rest.
But Titus, the preacher, must especially exhort the young men to be
sober minded. The infinitive "to be sober minded" is the same verb the Holy
Spirit used in verse four with reference to the young women. In that verse the A.V.
translated that verb "to be sober."2 The verb simply means: "to curb one's
appetites, to be moderate, to be disciplined." One could even translate it, "to
have one's senses about him." This word has a rather broad application. The idea is
that the young men must be exhorted by the preacher to live soberly, i.e., moderately.
They must live a disciplined life of godliness. The young men must live sanctified lives
based on and as a fruit of the true doctrine of the Word of God.
Verse 7
In this verse and verse eight the apostle inserts an exhortation to
Titus concerning how he is to conduct himself as a preacher. The text reads as follows:
Concerning (A.V. has "In")3 all things showing (presenting) thyself an example of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,4
"In, or concerning, all things" means in all spheres or concerning every aspect of his life: in the church, in the home, in his recreation, in everything Titus must show himself to be or present himself to the people of God under his spiritual care an example of good works. There is more to the ministry than preaching and teaching the Word! Preaching is the main aspect of the minister's calling, obviously! Preaching is that simply because it is the chief means of grace. It is that aspect, therefore, on which every other aspect of the minister's work depends. But Titus must also be an example of good works to the believers!
That ministers, ruling elders, and deacons too for that matter, are to be examples of good works to the believers among whom they work is a dominant theme in Scripture. Especially is this so in the New Testament! Officebearers (ministers, elders, deacons) must be exemplary Christians. But this applies more particularly to the ministers of the Word. They must be examples, patterns, models5 of good works.
Good works are, as the Heidelberg Catechism explains, the fruit of faith, works performed in obedience to God's law, and works done to God's glory (Q. 91). The Catechism also teaches the necessity of our doing good works. We, though delivered from our misery merely of grace through Christ, must do good works because: Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit; everyone may be assured of his faith by the fruits thereof (good works); and by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ (Q. 86, 87).
It is very important that the minister teach God's people by his preaching of the Word, but also that he teach them by a daily walk in all good works. If the minister's preaching is not adorned by an exemplary life, it is rendered ineffective! The minister by ungodly living loses all credibility and becomes a stumbling block and an offence to the members of the congregation. What is even worse, such a minister brings shame to the holy name of Jesus, who, after all, is the Head of the church, which is His body!
God's people must see in us who are ministers and in you students when you become ministers what is involved in serving the Lord as a husband, a father, and a faithful servant of the Lord and His precious, blood-bought people. You students and we professors with you must give ourselves over to this. And, note well, God's people are and will continue to be watching how we conduct ourselves!
The apostle continues the exhortation by getting specific. The minister must show himself a pattern of good works, "in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity.…" Doctrine is the teaching or instruction of the Word of God. In the doctrine of the Word, the minister must show himself to be uncorrupt. There must be no corruptness in his doctrinal teachings. His teachings must not be liable to decay; they must be imperishable .6
This simply means his teaching must be pure, free from the corruption of error and false teaching. For us in the Reformed tradition this certainly means we must teach the truth of Holy Scripture as that truth is summed in the Reformed confessions. Still more, we must teach that truth of Scripture as summed in the Reformed confessions as that is by God's grace and mercy "taught here in this christian church!" This means we must teach that Reformed truth as it is taught in the Protestant Reformed Churches and her sister churches, the Evangelical Reformed Churches in Singapore!
If you men are not committed fully to teaching, preaching, and
maintaining that truth, do not pursue the ministry in our churches. You must be examples
in doctrine of uncorruptness.
Verse 8
The apostle continues the exhortation to Titus in verse eight:
Sound speech which cannot be condemned (censured); in order that he who is opposed may be ashamed, having nothing wicked (base, evil) to say of us (or "of you.").7
In this verse, as noted above, the apostle continues the thought of verse seven. Titus is exhorted to show himself an example, a pattern of good works. In doctrine he must show uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity. Now, in verse eight, the apostle adds "sound speech." "Sound speech" must be understood in this sense, viz., the teaching of Titus, i.e., the doctrine which he preaches, must not deviate in any way from the truth of Scripture.8
Let us be reminded once more that this has specific and precise meaning for us today as preachers and those who aspire to that office. We must speak and teach the truth which is: 1) revealed and preserved in the inspired, holy, and infallible Scriptures; 2) the truth of Scripture which is interpreted and summed in the Reformed confessions (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, Canons of Dordt 1618-'19, and the Westminster Standards); 3) the truth of Scripture summed in the confessions as that truth is taught in our churches.
Sound speech in doctrine teaches the truth about God, for God is the God of all truth! "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he" (Deut. 32:4). Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity in the likeness of our flesh, is the truth, for Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life…" (John 14:6). The Holy Spirit poured out into the church by the exalted Christ is the Spirit of Truth. He reminds God's people of all that Jesus taught us. The Holy Spirit leads us, by means of the Word of God which He inspired, into all the truth (John 14-17, Acts 1, 2).
That same sound speech which teaches the truth concerning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit also teaches the truth concerning man. Sound speech teaches the truth about man's creation, his fall into sin, his total depravity, his salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, God's gift, his calling to love God and the neighbor according to God's law. Sound speech simply teaches the entire, beautiful truth of Scripture.
That sound speech cannot be condemned or censured. There is an important point here which must not escape our attention. When our speech as ministers does not deviate from the truth of Scripture as briefly explained above, then it cannot be condemned or censured. It can be opposed, it can be criticized, and it can be rejected. That, in fact, is precisely what the unbeliever does with that sound speech. But what the unbeliever is not able to do is either condemn or censure God's truth! In fact, by his unbelieving rejection of the sound speech, he makes himself worthy of condemnation!
The speech of Titus and of every other faithful minister of the gospel will be sound and true and unable to be condemned or censured when it conveys the truth of Scripture!
The inspired apostle states the purpose in the last part of the text: "…in order that he who is opposed (the A.V. has "he that is of the contrary part") may be ashamed, having nothing wicked (base, evil) 9 to say of you." When Titus or any other faithful preacher speaks the truth of Scripture, he will face opponents. Always there are those, not only outside of the church, but also members of the church, who set themselves against the truth. Enemies these are of the faith! But when Titus and the faithful preachers speak the truth which cannot be condemned or censured, these opponents cannot point to a single statement and say, "That's wicked, that's base, that's evil." For them to do so would be to say that God's Word is wicked, evil, or base. That is blasphemy!
Hence, in their opposition to the sound speech of the faithful minister, the enemies of the faith bring shame and disgrace upon themselves. And, as we have said, they stand condemned on account of their rejection of the truth! It's not the faithful minister, but the unbelieving opponent, who is ashamed!
Faithful ministers of the Word confess with Paul the apostle, "For
I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to
everyone that believeth, the Jew first, but also the Greek" (Rom. 1:16).
Verse 9
Having finished addressing Titus concerning his own life and his calling
to be a good example to the believers, the apostle now instructs him concerning the
calling of servants.
Servants (slaves)10 exhort to be subject (A.V. has "obedient") to their own masters ("despots"),11 to be well - pleasing in everything, not speaking against (A.V. has "answering again");12
We need to understand that the text is not speaking of servants (hired by employers and paid for services or work), but of slaves. These are owned, so that they are the property of their masters. Scripture does not condemn the practice of owning slaves. That the Bible does not condemn slavery must not be viewed as a phenomenon determined by the culture of the days during which the New Testament was written. We all know that in the culture of the Roman Empire in those days, slavery was common and an accepted practice. Many in our day argue that if the New Testament were written in our day, it would surely consider slavery a grievous error and a terrible injustice. God Himself does not condemn the practice.
The Lord, however, does have plenty to say in the inspired Scriptures as
to how slaves are to conduct themselves toward their masters and how masters are to treat
their slaves.13 In the verse before us, slaves are exhorted to be obedient to their own masters!
We correctly translated "masters" as "despots" (see footnote 11).
Concerning this Greek term, Thayer has this to say,
"…strictly the correlative of slave, doulos, and hence denoted absolute ownership and uncontrolled power; kurios (invariably translated "lord" in the New Testament, RDD), had a wider meaning, applicable to the various ranks and relations of life, and not suggestive either of property or of absolutism."14
Clearly, therefore, these masters had absolute ownership and control over these slaves.
Yet Scripture exhorts the slaves to be obedient to their despots. That verb "obedient" means to arrange under, to subordinate, to put in subjection, or to yield to the despot's orders! 15 This is the slave's calling. The only exception to this rule would be if the master demanded of his slave something contrary to God's law. In that event the slave would need to obey God rather than men. Let it be understood, however, even in this case the slave may not rebel or flee. He would have to suffer whatever unjust consequences his master might inflict on him. Joseph in Potiphar's house is an example in this regard. Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife's sinful advances landed him in prison!
Slaves must please their masters well "in everything," save the one exception just noted! Pleasing the masters well is doing that which is acceptable, and what is acceptable is willing submission to the master.
Still more, what is acceptable is "not answering again." This
is a rather graphic expression, which literally means "to speak against" (see
footnote 12). The idea is that the slave must not oppose himself to his master. He must
not decline to obey him, refuse to have anything to do with the master, or declare himself
to be against his master. The slave must not do this! Obedient submission means the slave
will be well pleasing in everything and he will not oppose his master.
Verse 10
The apostle continues his explanation of what is involved in the slaves
pleasing well their masters,
Not purloining (embezzling), but showing (demonstrating, proving) all good faithfulness; in order that they may adorn the teaching (doctrine) of our Savior God in everything."
Being in subjection to their own masters means "not purloining." This verb means "to set apart for oneself, to withdraw covertly, to appropriate for oneself," or, in plain words, "to embezzle."16 In order to understand this we need to remember that in those days one of the slaves often managed his master's business affairs. Given his position as a penniless slave who was totally at the mercy of his master, he might very well be tempted to take secretly what did not belong to him. This, the apostle writes, the slave must not do.
But, and here the contrast is great, for the Holy Spirit uses the strongest of the Greek adversatives, the slave must in all his work for the master and in all his life under the authority of his master demonstrate all good fidelity, or faithfulness.17 He must be honest and upright. The slave must have his master's welfare and best interests at heart and be faithful and loyal to his master. The slave must neither say nor do anything whatsoever which might raise even the slightest suspicion that he is less than faithful. And certainly the slave must not contradict his master or appropriate for himself that which properly belongs to his master.
The purpose of these injunctions to the slaves is stated in the last clause of the text, "in order that they (the slaves) may adorn the teaching of our Savior God in everything." 18 The verb means "to adorn, to decorate, to heighten the attractiveness" of the doctrine or teaching of our Savior God.
We may be brief at this point because we have treated this concept earlier. The teaching or doctrine of our Savior God is the doctrine which is revealed in Holy Scripture. That is God's teaching. That which God teaches us He causes us to appropriate with understanding minds and believing hearts through the Holy Spirit's sanctifying work in us.
Still more, the text emphasizes that God is our Savior. And the teaching that God through the Holy Spirit preserved in Scripture concerns Himself, the Sovereign, covenant-making, and covenant-keeping God, who has saved us from our sin and death through the cross and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That teaching or doctrine is made attractive by God's people regardless of their station in life, whether bond or free, when they are obedient to the Lord's will. But this text is addressed to those people of God who are slaves. When they live in obedience to God's will by being pleasing to their masters, not speaking against them, not embezzling, demonstrating all good fidelity or faithfulness to their masters, the beauty and glory of God are displayed in their sanctified lives! Thus they adorn the teaching of God our Savior in all things.
A Comparison of Exegesis:
John Calvin
and Thomas Aquinas (2)
Russell J. Dykstra
The value of examining the exegesis of Aquinas and Calvin is found in the reality that both men are not only theological giants, they are also respected exegetes in the Roman Catholic and in the Reformed traditions respectively. Both Aquinas and Calvin were preachers who wrote numerous commentaries on Scripture. A comparative study will reveal that while many similarities exist in the exegesis of Calvin and of Aquinas, yet significant differences appear which must be attributed to the distinct impact of the Reformation. Eventually, specific specimens of exegesis from Ephesians will be examined in order to compare and contrast the exegesis of Calvin and Aquinas. However, our first article began to set forth the exegetical principles and methods of both men, so far as these principles can be known.
Since the hermeneutical rules followed by any given exegete are inseparably connected with his view of Scripture, we began by comparing Calvin's and Aquinas' writings on Scripture itself. From a formal point of view, these men have nearly identical views of Scripture, in that both receive the Bible as the Word of God. As a result, both exegetes insist that the words of Scripture are important. One evident difference between them is that while Calvin stays close to the literal text and shuns allegorizing, Aquinas allows for different senses of meaning in a text (as many as four) and is given to some allegorizing.
Another significant issue which must be addressed is the matter of
exegetical freedom. This concerns, for example, the relationship between tradition and
Scripture, as well as the authority of the church over exegesis. The exegete's view on
these questions determines much about the final product of his exegesis.
Scripture and Other Authorities
On the place and authority of the church in exegesis, Calvin and Aquinas part ways. Aquinas is bound by the authority of the church. This influence/authority is threefold. First, much of his lecturing was on the glosses of Scripture, which had come down through the ages.1 Not surprisingly, these glosses found their way into the exegesis of Aquinas.
In addition, the patristic fathers carry great weight in Aquinas' exegesis. In fact, one of his more popular works is a running commentary on the four gospels in which he merely compiles numerous quotations from the fathers. 2
Thirdly, the church itself has the final say in the interpretation of Scripture. Although the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope was not officially established by Rome until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, a powerful and longstanding tradition held that the pope's judgment in matters of doctrine was decisive. Already in 416, Pope Innocent I wrote to the bishops in North Africa, "…you have strengthened the vigor of your religion…with true reason, for you have confirmed that reference must be made to our judgment, realizing what is due the Apostolic See.…" 3 Although the bishops of North Africa rejected his presumption, this did not stop the next pope (Zosimus) from writing to the same bishops a year later that "…the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgments.…"4 By the thirteenth century the pope had cemented his position as the head of the church and as the final interpreter of Scripture.
In addition, Thomas Aquinas was a part of the medieval scholastic tradition. The scholastics of the Middle Ages are difficult to characterize. Nonetheless, this can be said of them, generally, that they combined philosophy and theology and pressed both into the service of the church. Aquinas, like other theologians of his day, virtually equates theology with Scripture. In the first Question of his Summa "the two expressions 'sacred doctrine' and 'Sacred Scripture' are used alternatively, as equivalents."5 Hence, as he expounds Scripture, he is setting forth doctrine, which doctrine must conform to the dogmas of the Church.
For all these reasons, the exegetes of Thomas Aquinas' day did not stray
far from the official teaching of the church. Nor did Aquinas. Lamb puts it this way:
This does not imply that St. Thomas advocated sola scriptura; he could not abstract the Book from its living environment within ecclesial tradition…. The Church Fathers were the incomparable guides in this positive task of assimilating Christ and his meaning. They never could be rejected in an authentically Christian hermeneutic.6
Lamb, himself a Trappist monk, puts this in the best possible light for the modern reader. Nevertheless, if his description of Aquinas' exegesis is correct, Aquinas' exegesis was bound by the Church.
With Calvin, circumstances and attitude are entirely different. It has
already been noted that Calvin maintains that the Scriptures are authoritative in all
areas of life, which authority is not dependent on the church. He also rejects Rome's
claim of authority over the interpretation of Scripture.7 In addition, Calvin demands exegetical freedom in
relation to other great theologians, even so great a theologian as Martin Luther. He
responds in that connection to objections from a certain Francis Burkhard as follows:
There remains the other charge, that I do not everywhere subscribe to Luther's interpretations. But now, if each interpreter is not permitted in individual places in Scripture to put forward what he thinks, into what sort of slavery shall we not sink back? No, if I am not allowed anywhere to dissent from Luther's judgment, it would be absurd and ridiculous to take up the office of interpreting. 8
Calvin would not be bound by the exegesis of any other man, no matter how he might respect the man as a theologian (as he assuredly did esteem Luther).
Calvin exercises freedom also in the use of the patristic fathers. Parker describes the role of these fathers in Calvin's commentaries as being that of a partnership, not one of domination. Calvin carries on a "dialogue with the immediate and more distant past," but is free to state his own conclusions. 9
David Steinmetz captures accurately the relationship of Calvin to the
patristic fathers. On the one hand,
Calvin does not use the Fathers in the way a medieval commentator used his ancient authorities. The Fathers are not cited by Calvin in his exegesis…because he agrees with them and needs their authority to strengthen his argument. Nor does he cite them because their teaching is binding on him and forecloses in advance the range of his exegetical options. 10
At the same time, Calvin speaks of the value "of the ancients who have, by their piety, learning, holiness, and also by their age, gained so much authority that we ought to despise nothing of what they have adduced." 11/ Steinmetz insists that Calvin uses these fathers to stimulate his reflections on the text, particularly with ideas not found in more contemporary commentators, but he adds, "Nevertheless, they do not have the last word. Paul does." 12
One would expect that Calvin would be less influenced by philosophy than Aquinas, and this is the case. Although neither of the men would call upon a philosopher as the final authority, Aquinas believes that "sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason," even if only for "extrinsic and probable arguments." 13
Although Calvin does not call upon philosophers as supporting authorities, he does use them for purposes of illustration. He notes that "the truth is vindicated in opposition to every doubt, when, unsupported by foreign aid, it has its sole sufficiency in itself." He contrasts the writings of Demosthenes, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, "or any other of that class" with Scripture. The former will, he admits, cause one to "feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted." But Scripture will "pierce your heart" because it contains "a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior." 14
The Purpose of Exegesis
One additional element of exegesis must be discussed before turning to the respective exegetical methods and styles, that is, the goal and purpose for expounding Scripture. No doubt, an exegete's purpose will affect the actual commentary produced. Aquinas writes far less than Calvin on the topic of exegesis itself, and does not, so far as we could determine, express his views on this matter. Perhaps his answer would be simply that it is the Word of God and ought to be explained for the benefit of man, for he does maintain that "Sacred Scripture is divinely ordered to this: that through it, the truth necessary for salvation may be made known to us."15 Yet it will be evident that Aquinas uses the exposition of Scripture to defend the dogmas of the Church.
On the other hand, Calvin is much more explicit on this score. It is evident that he set his mind to produce as many commentaries as he could in his lifetime, having in mind already this desire in 1539 when he wrote in his Epistle to the Reader attached to the Institutes, "if I shall hereafter publish any commentaries on Scripture."16 In addition, in his dedication of the commentaries on the catholic epistles, written to King Edward of England in 1551, Calvin makes this significant comment, "I, indeed, have in an especial manner resolved to devote myself to this work [of writing commentaries], as long as I live, whenever time and opportunity shall be afforded me." 17
Many have proposed explanations for Calvin's energetic writing of commentaries, but the simplest and most logical is that of W. De Greef: "Early on it appeared that Calvin wished to stimulate as much use of the Bible by the common people as possible."18 This follows from Calvin's firm conviction of sola Scriptura for doctrine, for walk, for faith, and for the regulation of the church.
Thus Calvin's motive for writing commentaries was, first of all, to benefit the church. In the above mentioned dedication to King Edward, Calvin writes that "the Church to which I belong shall thus receive the fruit of this labour…of writing [commentaries]."19
Secondly, and closely related to the above, commenting on Scripture is for the edification of the church. 20 Exegesis is never an end in itself.
Thirdly, Calvin desires to set the Scriptures free from the perversions of the Church of Rome. Writing to King Edward, Calvin blames the troubles and errors of Rome on her departure from Scripture. He reassures the faithful "that nothing is more firm or certain than the teaching of Scripture." Yet, since the true meaning of Scripture is deformed by the "Sophists" and obscured by the "rabble of the Pope," he adds that "it behoves us to be more intent on the restoration of its brightness."21
Finally, in all his exegesis Calvin's goal is to find "Christ in
it. Anyone who deviates from this may labor and study all his life, but he will not come
to a knowledge of the truth."22
Method and Style
Having examined the exegetical principles underlying the exegesis of Calvin and of Aquinas, as well as some of the implications involved, we must yet observe the techniques of these exegetes, that is to say, the manner in which they worked with Scripture and the style of their commentaries.
First, as to the use of the language, in his exegesis Calvin deals with philology, grammar, and figures of rhetoric. François Wendel is convinced that this rather scientific method is the fruit of Calvin's humanism.23 No doubt it is true that Calvin's humanist training prepared him well for his life's calling, and that he presses into the service of exegesis also what is of use from that training. It should also be noted, however, that these same activities are perfectly in harmony with his high view of Scripture, and the emphasis on the literal meaning.
Calvin pays particular attention to the words of Scripture. Before beginning to comment, he engages in textual criticism to obtain the correct reading of the Greek or Hebrew text, and then translates the passage into Latin. Calvin seeks the particular meaning of the individual word. "For help in philology Calvin will go to Bude chiefly, to Erasmus and Bucer certainly, perhaps also to Melanchthon."24
In the end, however, the context is the final court of appeal. Parker
asserts that the context is "all-important" for determining the meaning of the
words.
Individual words or clauses are not allowed any eccentricity; they are controlled by the context. Conversely, the meaning of the context is understood by the interrelationship of the meanings of the individual parts. Hence these parts are to be interpreted only in relationship to the other parts.25
Calvin learned the importance of this from experience. Arguing against the Anabaptist position, he observes that "there are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position."26
Concerning the use of language, it must be pointed out that Aquinas is at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with Calvin, for Aquinas did not have a working knowledge of either the Hebrew or the Greek. In his exegesis, therefore, he is dependent on the Latin, and the Latin Bible he uses is the Vulgate. Lamb notes that Aquinas did have concordances and dictionaries at his disposal.27 O'Meara asserts that Aquinas' "theology of the biblical text pays attention to how different writings explored the same word and the same theme, and experts see here signs of his employment of a concordance."28
At the same time, Farrar is obviously less than impressed with Aquinas'
linguistic skills. He complains that
a large part of his method consists in the ingenious juxtaposition of passages of which the verbal similarity depends only upon the Vulgate. From these imaginary identities of expression, by a method which seems to have survived from the days of Hillel, he deduces systems extremely ingenious but utterly without foundation .29
Aquinas and Calvin share in this distinction, that both repudiate complicated and verbose commentary on Scripture. O'Meara points out a report of an early biographer of Aquinas that "students flocked to his classroom" already in Aquinas' early lecturing days. "The reason for this success was the terse, clear, and engagingly intelligible style of his lectures."30 Aquinas' commentaries have the same distinguishing characteristics, namely, they are terse and clear.
This is also a consuming passion of Calvin. It is well documented that Calvin not only loved brevity, but that he strove consciously and deliberately for clarity and brevity in his commentaries.31 In the dedicatory letter to his commentary on Romans, his first, Calvin unveils the style he determines to use in all his commentaries. Though he recognizes the value of the style of other men, such as Melancthon and Bucer, Calvin rejects their style for himself. He will not (as Bucer) make the commentary long and difficult, lest it be of no value for the ordinary reader. Nor will he include long discussions of theological topics in his commentaries (as did Melancthon), for he fears that the reader may well become bored, and that the various verses will not all be treated. Treatment of topics is reserved for his Institutes, he announces already in the Epistle to the Reader in his 1939 Edition.32 In his commentaries, Calvin strives for a running commentary on all the verses of a given chapter and book. But above all, Calvin insists that a commentary must be brief and clear!
In harmony with that intent, Calvin makes sparing use of quotations from
other commentaries. He exercises extreme self-discipline in his commentaries. Farrar,
though no friend of Calvin or his doctrine, is nonetheless full of admiration for the
style and clarity of his commentaries. He writes,
Nothing can furnish a greater contrast to many helpless commentaries, with their congeries of vacillating variorum annotations heaped together in aimless multiplicity, than the terse and decisive notes of the great Genevan theologian. He was a foe to all vagueness, prolixity, and digression.33
Farrar adds that Calvin "never drags his weary reader through a bewildering mass of opinions, of which some are absurd, the majority impossible, and of which all but one must be wrong."34
The actual writing style of Calvin in his commentaries is aided greatly
by his humanist training. Wendel insists that it is exactly Calvin's humanist training
that
distinguishes him among all the reformers. In all his works he remains respectful to well-conducted reasoning, to chaste style and good taste. We know that Calvin was one of the best Latinists of the sixteenth century; and when he wrote French, too, his language was of a range and elegance comparable to Pascal's or Bossuet's. In refinement of taste he comes very near to Erasmus."35
The style of Aquinas, on the other hand, is decidedly different. Aquinas belongs to the Middle Ages; his theology is part of the scholastic era. In fact, C. Spicq considers the "commentaries of St. Thomas on St. John, and especially on St. Paul, [to be] the maturest fruit and the most perfect realization of medieval scholastic exegesis."36 His commentaries definitely evidence this - they are dialectic, and "the chief ingredient of this approach to the Bible is the omnipresent divisions and subdivisions."37
The commentaries of Aquinas do not often receive the high praise that
Calvin's do. O. Pesch observes,
The biblical commentaries of Thomas are quite often rather tiresome to read. The text is divided in minute detail, and this sometimes results in a stark analysis which pursues the grammatical and logical connections. Often this is expanded by the exposition of various possible interpretations among which Aquinas does not always decide. Sometimes the commentary becomes a mini-question or an article (as in the ST).38
Farrar, highly critical of all scholastic exegesis, maintains that:
Even Thomas of Aquino, with all his nobleness and greatness, profound as a thinker, incomparable as a theologian, is least successful in the interpretation of Scripture. Imbued with the fatal dream of the fourfold sense of Scripture, he is meagre in the explanation of the literal sense, but diffuse in speculative discussions and dialectic developments. 39
According to Farrar, "neither Greek, nor Arab, nor Jewish learning produced any adequate effect on the exegesis of the Schoolmen. Even in the hands of St. Thomas it is dependent, traditional, unprogressive." 40 This assessment is a serious indictment of Aquinas' exegesis. One expects that Aquinas' exegesis will not be nearly as progressive as that, say, of Calvin, due to the difference in the age and the history that transpired between Aquinas and Calvin. At the same time, one would expect a theologian of Aquinas' genius to advance the understanding of Scripture in his exegesis. And it can be noted that in many other aspects of his work, Aquinas was not afraid to be independent, innovative, and progressive.41
Having completed a brief evaluation of the views of Calvin and Aquinas on Scripture and exegesis, we can turn next to a comparison of two passages from their respective commentaries on Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians.
… to be continued
The Serious Call
of the Gospel -
Is the Well-Meant Offer One?
Chapter III
Is the Well-Meant Offer
of Salvation a Serious Call?
Lau Chin Kwee
A. The nature of an offer.
As it is evident that there has been a change in the use of the term
"offer" in the development of theology, or should we say a failure to make sharp
distinction of the various usages of this term, it is necessary here to consider how this
term is commonly understood and used today, before considering the legitimacy of its usage
for the serious call of the gospel.
1. The constituent elements of a well-meant offer.
We are using the "well-meant offer" to indicate the present day usage of this term "offer." The well-meant offer has the following essential elements:
a. The availability of the thing offered.
Now if a man come to us and offer us something either for sale or for an exchange for something else which we might have, our natural understanding would be that he has the thing for us should we decide to accept his offer. So if God offers salvation to anyone on the basis of that man's fulfilling a certain condition, then He must have that salvation ready for that man should the man decide to accept that offer and fulfill that condition.
b. The willingness of the owner to part with it.
An offer also suggests that the owner is willing to part with what he offers to another should that condition be fulfilled. If ever there is a fall-through in this transaction, it would not be because the owner was not willing, but because the one to whom he made the offer, for some reason, is either unwilling or unable to fulfill the condition of the offer. In other words, the owner is all ready to close the deal, but the ball is now fully in the court of the one offered.
c. The favor shown by the owner to those receiving the offer.
When something good is offered to one person rather than to others, it is only natural to consider that some favor is shown, here, to those offered over against others who are not offered. It is evident that the "gospel offer" is not shown to all men that ever live. Is it fair to these neglected ones if salvation is a matter of the offer?
d. The desire of the owner that those receiving the offer may accept it.
Since this is a well-meant offer, the owner must have the desire that the transaction be closed. If an offer is not closed, it is only because the owner has no power over the free-will of the one offered.
e. An option given to one receiving the offer.
An offer is not something which carries with it an obligation to accept. In other words, rejecting an offer is not a morally wrong act in itself. One has the option to accept or not to accept.
f. Condition of prerequisite implied in the well-meant offer.
In a well-meant offer, the realization of the things offered is
conditioned upon the acceptance of the offer and the fulfillment of the condition
stipulated in the offer. This condition is a condition of prerequisite. If the acceptance
of an offer is absent, there is no carrying out of what is offered. An unconditional
undertaking is not called an offer, but an unconditional promise.
2. The well-meant offer is a kind of call in the sense that it is a communication of thoughts that expects a response from its recipients.
That there is a call in the gospel proclamation, no one should doubt. It would be a fatal error if all the church could do is simply set forth the truth without the call to believe and submit to it. This would be a church without discipline of its own members, and thus a false church. And when the gospel is brought to those who have never heard it before, should there not also be a call? A call is important.
The well-meant offer is also a type of calling. One need only go to an
open market to understand what is the call of a sale-offer. One is sometimes, literally,
called into a business talk with another. Then one feels the pressure to respond in some
way - "yes" or "no." The well-meant offer of the gospel and of
salvation is a kind of call. Just because it is a call, and the Bible also reveals that
the gospel proclamation includes a call, does not mean that the well-meant offer is a
legitimate call as prescribed in Scripture.
B. Wherein the well-meant offer is not a serious call of the gospel.
We must now compare the well-meant offer with what we've already written
about the true call of the gospel, to see if the former is indeed a serious call of the
gospel.
1. The call of God must be sincere, but in the well-meant offer there is no sincerity.
Now, we are not talking here about the insincerity of Christian believers who preach the gospel using the well-meant offer method. It is possible to do a thing wrongly and ignorantly and yet with sincerity. We are talking about the sincerity of God, if He should issue the well-meant offer of salvation to all.
a. Grace (God's unmerited favor) is said to be shown to all who hear the gospel, yet the merit of repentance and faith is required for salvation.
Some may object that by the grace shown in the hearing of the gospel they do not mean the saving grace of God, but the common grace of God, which is non-saving. This distinction is the invention of men not found in Scripture, and it confuses God's people, so that the unmerited character of grace is removed. There is no comfort of grace if there is a grace of God that does not save. It is by grace that we are saved.
When repentance and faith are demanded as prerequisites for salvation, they become something outside of the pale of salvation and must be met by a man first before God's salvation will start operating in his life. What is demanded becomes meritorious for salvation.
There are those who argue that this faith and repentance are the gifts
of God and are part of the salvation benefits that God has purchased for His elect people,
as the Canons of Dordt teach. Therefore, they are not the merit attained by those who are
saved, but they are earned by Christ Himself on the cross. Indeed, the Canons of Dordt
teach that repentance and faith are gifts of God's grace purchased at the cross and flow
from the election of God. It is exactly for that reason that the Canons deny that they are
conditions as prerequisites for election and salvation.
This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: "He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph. 1:4). 1
The will of God to save is never conditioned upon what men would do. God is the sovereign Lord who saves whom He wills by the means which He has appointed. Ours is to seek His mercy and discover His grace, never to put Him in subjection to our will and fancy.
b. God has no intention to save all to whom the gospel comes, as the well-meant offer suggests.
Now, we are not saying that the serious call of the gospel does not call all to whom the gospel comes, to seek salvation in Christ by way of their repentance and faith. That has always been man's obligation to do since the Fall in Eden. The gospel makes clear to everyone his calling as a fallen creature. But the well-meant offer speaks of God's intention to save all, provided they all believe. God promised to save all who believe, but He does not offer to save all who would believe. The former exalt God as sovereign, while the latter subject God's will to man's will.
Heppe clearly shows that it is the Reformed faith not to make the
outward calling in such a fashion that there is a possibility of the "counsel of God
being perhaps rendered futile by man," which evidently the well-meant offer does upon
close examination.
Moreover outward Church calling is not imparted to the non-elect in such a wise that God wished to present them with faith, should they refrain from resisting the activity of the H. Spirit. Otherwise the possibility would arise of a counsel of God being perhaps rendered futile by man. Besides it is to be noted that man can only resist the H. Spirit. -HEIDEGGER (XXI, 10): "Nor does God altogether call particular reprobate in such wise that he has decreed and wills to give them faith and repentance just like the elect, provided only they do not resist the H. Spirit's call, as is the leptologia (frivolity) of some. There are no decrees of God which men or any creature can frustrate. They are altogether effectual and have a most definite outcome. If He has decreed to give to some faith and repentance, He bestows them in time through the Word and the H. Spirit. In that case all men of themselves and by their nature resist the H. Spirit: Rom. 8, 7 (the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be).2
Since salvation is the work of God alone, an offer of salvation is an
offer of what God Himself would do. If God sincerely offers to save someone, why would he
at the same time want to harden his heart? A. C. DeJong wrote that this change in God's
attitude is not towards all men, but only towards those who have persistently rejected the
offer. In fact, God even withdraws His offer and makes His Word to them become "the
instrument of his wrath" hardening their hearts in its process. Thus the
well-meant-offer men make the attitude of God change according to man's fancy.
Others disbelieve, they reject the call to salvation. God passes them by with the saving operations of his insuperable grace. But God continues to call them back to salvation. Sometimes this offer is withdrawn, and God's word becomes the instrument of his wrath and he hardens the impenitent sinner. This hardening action is the present actualization of the final judgment. Preaching, gospel preaching, is such a serious matter that it forms a prelude of the end. The present hardening activities of God constitute the eschatological prelude of the end. They are to be viewed as anticipatory events of the Messianic judgment. Rather than disproving the existence of a well-meant offer of salvation the "hardening" passages prove precisely the opposite. God so seriously and genuinely wills that his call to salvation be heeded that he hardens those who reject his offer. It is the Lord's redemptive earnestness which occasions these echatological preludes of the Messianic judgment. 3
c. God is said to desire the salvation of all who hear the gospel, yet He gives the necessary faith only to some and not to all. Can God be sincere about His desire?
This controversy is not about whether the gospel should be preached to
all men and that all should be called to repentance and faith and that the promise of the
gospel should be made known to all. All agree to the above, but debate is over the will
and desire of God in the call of the gospel. Tom Wells, having studied the controversy,
said:
Those who have not studied the matter will be surprised that relatively few texts speak to the subject directly. The reason is this: the question is not about whether God calls all men to faith and repentance when the gospel is preached. The question is rather: does God in any sense will or desire the salvation of the non-elect who hear the gospel?4
Repentance and faith are so integrally connected with salvation that the
desire for the latter cannot be conceived of without the desire for the former. If God
desires to save a person, He will also give him repentance and faith. Repentance and faith
are part of salvation and not conditions of salvation.
Evangelical repentance is the gift of free grace; faith is the gift of God. What is God's, as a gift to bestow, cannot be man's duty to perform as a condition of salvation. Those who are invited to look to Christ, to come to Him for salvation, are very minutely described: they are the weary and heavy laden with sin, the penitent, the hungry and thirsty soul, etc., these are the characters invited to come and believe in Christ, and not all men (Matt. 11:28; Isa. 55:1; Mark 2:17).5
To those who still insist that the idea of the well-meant offer is all
right so long as we maintain that repentance and faith are the gifts of God, William
Cunningham has this to say:
Evangelical Arminians profess to ascribe to the agency of the Spirit the production of faith and regeneration in men individually; and seem to exclude, as Calvinists do, the co-operation of man in the exercise of his natural powers in the origin or commencement of the great spiritual change which is indispensable to salvation. But whatever they may hold, or think they hold, upon this point, they cannot consistently-without renouncing their Arminianism, and admitting the peculiar principles of Calvinism-make the agency of the Spirit the real, determining, efficacious cause of the introduction of spiritual life into the soul; and must ascribe, in some way or other,-palpably or obscurely,-some co-operation to man himself, even in the commencement of this work. And if the commencement of the work be God's, in such a sense that His agency is the determining and certainly efficacious cause of its being effected in every instance, then this necessarily implies the exercise of His sovereignty in the matter in a much higher and more definite sense than any in which Arminians can ever ascribe it to Him. It is not disputed that, whatever God does in time, He decreed or resolved to do from eternity; and, therefore, men, in consistency, must either deny that God does this,-that the agency of His Spirit is the cause of the implantation of spiritual life,-of the commencement of the process which leads to the production of faith and regeneration in any other sense than as a mere partial concurring cause co-operating with man,-or else they must admit all the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism in regard to grace and predestination."6
Making repentance and faith the gifts of God is no guarantee that one is
soundly Reformed. One is still an Arminian if he advocates co-operation between God and
man for the commencement of the spiritual life in one sense or another. And that is what
the well-meant offer suggests.
2. God's call comes from on high, but in the well-meant offer there is no authority.
As observed above, the gospel call is the creative call of God in the new creation. Converts are said to be new creations of God in Scripture (2 Cor. 5:17). Then they are also called those who are born again (John 3:3, 5). Salvation is compared in Scripture with nothing less than the great wonder of creation! What power brings such things into being? He commanded and they were so. He called everything into being out of nothing. There is power and authority in the call of God. "…God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17).
The well-meant offer as a gospel call lacks the power and character to
call into being what is not. Hear what Christopher Ness wrote:
If fallen man must be drawn to goodness, then hath he no free-will to good…. That moral persuasion will not bring a soul to Christ; that man cannot come himself, but must be drawn, is proved from John 6:44: "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." Drawing is a bringing of anything out of its course and channel by an influence from without, and not from an innate power or principle from within. In Sol. Song 1:4, it is not said lead, but "draw;" in drawing there is less will and more power than in leading; and though God draws us strongly, yet He doth it sweetly. As we are drawn, we have not a free-will to good, else man fell in his understanding only, not in his will; yet are we volunteers (Psa. 110:3), a willing people; not that Christ finds us so, but makes us so "in the day of His power," and when He speaks to us with a strong hand (Isa. 8:11). We are naturally haters of God, and at enmity with Him (Rom. 1:30; 8:7), but the Spirit gives a new power to the soul, and then acts and influences that power to good; so draws God-haters to love Him. This is more than a bare persuasion to a stone to be warm, for God takes away the "heart of stone," and gives a "heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36:26). God the Spirit gives the inclination to come, and the very power of coming to Christ; and Christ finds nothing that is good in us (Rom. 7:18).7
R. C. Sproul spoke of a debate he once had at an Arminian seminary on
the issue of predestination. At one juncture he pointed out the fact that the Greek word,
elkush|, as found in John 6:44, has the idea of "drag," suggesting that the
Father compels men to come to Christ. The opponent then quoted its usage by a Greek poet,
where water was said to be "drawn" from the well, suggesting that it is
ridiculous to say that water was dragged from the well. Sproul then responded that it was
more ridiculous to suggest that the water in the well was "wooed" to come forth,
as the Arminians would like to suggest that the gospel call does just that - to bring
faith out of a person.8 The serious call of the gospel has power to draw, which the well-meant offer
lacks.
Chapter IV
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, may I begin by quoting Dr. John Gerstner again, who wrote that the well-meant offer of salvation, as supported and promoted by Murray and Stonehouse and the churches they represent, "does incalculable damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of His gospel."
So what can we do now?
A. Preach the gospel zealously and issue the serious call faithfully.
The darkness of the false gospel is best dispelled by the light of the true. Churches must be well versed in the doctrines of grace and be unashamed to promote them by all means, especially in the preaching at worship services. Believers should stop worrying about offending people when they are exalting their God in what they testify.
Preaching must always come with the call to repentance of sins and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not matter whether the hearers are within or outside of the covenant. This call is natural and universal. In this way, as Christ is also pointed out, there is proclaimed the particular promise of God of His grace towards those who believe.
As the way of the cross is not without trials and temptation, we must
guard against discouragement and unfaithfulness in the course of our labor. We must also
learn how to encourage one another in the cause of Christ.
B. Expose the evil tendency of the well-meant offer.
The well-meant offer is man-centered in approach, in that it seeks to get man to make a decision - to accept the offer. As such there is a tendency to water down the content of the gospel or to sweeten it and make it more acceptable to the hearers. It is God's truth that saves. It kills and makes alive. The truth about man must be told. The truth about the end of the world and the coming of Christ in judgment must be proclaimed courageously.
God's people must be warned against the serious error of maintaining that God has two irreconcilable, conflicting wills. The advocates of the well-meant offer rush in where even the Arminians fear to tread. The Arminians were at pain to point in one of their Opinions that "… we do not here, as some say, acknowledge in God a holy simulation, or a double person."9 Today the supporters of the well-meant offer, with false piety and humility, claim that their minds are too puny to understand the conflicting mind of God, thus in effect making God "a double person." Suggesting two conflicting wills in God would ultimately rob God's people of their assurance of salvation.
Finally, about their belief in antinomy and its result in the careless
handling of God's Word, we should listen to Robert Reymond:
… the proffered definition of "paradox" (or antinomy) as two truths which are both unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which also cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason is itself inherently problematical, for the one who so defines the term is suggesting by implication that either he knows by means of an omniscience that is not normally in human possession that no one is capable of reconciling the truths in question or he has somehow universally polled everyone who has ever lived, is living now, and will live in the future and has discovered that not one has been able, is able, or will be able to reconcile the truths. But it goes without saying that neither of these conditions is or can be true. Therefore, the very assertion that there are paradoxes, so defined, in Scripture is seriously flawed by the terms of the definition itself. There is no way to know if such a phenomenon is present in Scripture. Merely because any number of scholars have failed to reconcile to their satisfaction two given truths of Scripture is no proof that the truths cannot be harmonized. And if just one scholar claims to have reconciled the truths to his or her own satisfaction, this ipso facto renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect.10
C. Point out the good effect of the serious gospel call upon Christian life and worship.
The serious gospel call addresses the conscience of fallen man, which is how the Law brings one to Christ. When our Lord was on earth He spoke as one with authority, unlike the Pharisees and Scribes. Today in that pervasive well-meant offer the preaching is robbed of its essential authority. God's people need to be assured by the commands of God, not an offer.
When our salvation is fully in the hands of God, would we not be humble before Him and find our complete trust and reliance upon Him? To whom shall we go? He has the words of life. The serious call of the gospel promotes the healthy sense of complete and utter reliance upon God alone for salvation.
Knowing that the immutable God saves in the way of our repentance of sins and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, helps us to be more focused in our lives. We must deal with sins in our lives. And dealing with sins we must come humbly to the cross. Knowing our infinite debt we seek to live our thankful life.
Having a constant sense of God's greatness and of our total dependence upon Him sets for us the proper atmosphere for true worship. The proper serious gospel call calls us to the true and joyful worship of the God of our salvation. Amen.
Bibliography
BOOKS & PERIODICALS
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church Since the Apostolic Age, vol. II. Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.
DeJong, A.C. The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K. Schilder. T. Wever - Franeker, 1954.
DeJong, Peter Y., Ed. Crisis in the Reformed Churches, Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619. Published by Reformed Fellowship, Inc. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968.
Engelsma, David J. Hyper-calvinism & The Call of the Gospel. Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994.
Gritters, Barrett L. Grace Uncommon. The Evangelism Society of the Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church, Byron Center, Michigan.
Hanko, Herman. The History of the Free Offer. Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Grandville, Michigan: 1989.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Ruskin House, Museum Street, 1950.
Hodge, Archibald A. The Atonement. T. Nelson and Sons, Paternoster Row; Edinburgh; New York: 1870.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved By Grace. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1989.
Murray, John. Redemption - Accomplished and Applied. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids 3, Michigan, 1955.
Ness, Christopher. An Antidote Against Arminianism. Huntington, West Virginia, USA: Publishers of Baptist Literature, 1982.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA: 1998.
Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 1986.
Turretin, Francis. The Atonement of Christ. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, P&R Publishing, P. O. Box 817, Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865-0817: 1992.
Wells, Tom. Notes on the Free Offer Controversy. West Chestier, OH: Tom Wells, 7686 Grandly Way, 1992.
Winzer, Matthew. Murray on the Free Offer: A Review, The Blue Banner, vol. 9, issue 10-12, Oct./Dec. 2000.
The Place of the
Mystical Union in Reformed Soteriology1
Christopher J. Connors
Our subject is the mystical union and its place in Reformed soteriology.
When I told the youth group in my congregation of this topic, one wag said: "What's that about, Pastor, spooks and meditation and stuff?" We had a chuckle about that, but I decided, on the spot, to begin this paper by clarifying what I do not mean by the term "mystical union." This term, like so many of our Christian terms, has been hijacked by the "New Age" of spiritual enlightenment, in which science, Pseudo-Christian spirituality, Eastern mysticism, and occult spiritism are converging to form a "new spirituality" for the post-modern world - and the mystical union is a major theme. For example, a recent Reader's Digest 2 article informs us that hi-tech brain scans conducted on Tibetan Buddhists meditating and Franciscan nuns engaged in deep, contemplative prayer have "captured snapshots of the brain nearing a state of mystical transcendence.… Catholic mystics, we are told, referred to this state as 'mystical union' with God. A Buddhist would call it 'inter-connectedness.' …a sense of limitless awareness melting into infinite space."3 Paul Harrison, a "Scientific Pantheist,"4 in a recent article titled Mystical Union and Meditation, says: "Mystics in all religions attempt to overcome separation and achieve unity with the source of being - God, Allah, the Tao, Brahma, emptiness. … Scientific pantheism agrees with the mystics of all ages and traditions that it is possible to achieve re-union. But it seeks a re-union with the Real, not with the imaginary. … If we empty our mind of all thought and allow ourselves to enter into the motion of things, and the motion to enter into us, we can literally swim in the ocean of existence and burn with its fire."5
No wonder that young man thought his pastor had lost the plot! Well, let me say, our subject has nothing to do with such notions - except in that it exposes them as counterfeit. In such an age the Reformed churches must assert, maintain, and defend the truths of Scripture concerning the living and true God, and man's relation to Him. Also we must declare that any notion of direct access to God, or immediacy of union between the soul and God, is utterly false. "No man hath seen God at any time (John 1:18)," and that there is no access to the Father but through faith in Jesus Christ, who is "the way the truth and the life" (John 14:6). Only through faith in the incarnate, crucified, and risen Son presented to us in the gospel can we know and have communion with God.6 The "spirituality" of the kingdom of Satan brings "connectedness" all right, but not with the true God.
But let us turn positively to our subject.
I suspect that the doctrine of the mystical union has, in times past, received much more attention from our Reformed forebears than it does today.
John Calvin certainly placed great emphasis upon it in his Institutes.
In fact, he built his Soteriology around it. Calvin's first proposition in book three,
which concerns The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ," is: The
Holy Spirit as the bond that unites us to Christ." His first paragraph reads:
We must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he has to become ours and to dwell within us. …we possess nothing until we grow into one body with him.7
Heinrich Heppe, describing the view of the sixteenth century continental Reformers, could say: "At the root of the whole doctrine of appropriation of salvation lies the doctrine of union to Christ."8 And John Murray, in the Presbyterian tradition, writes: "... if we did not take account of it, not only our presentation of the application of redemption but our view of the Christian life would be gravely distorted. Nothing is more central or basic than union and communion with Christ. ... Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation...." 9
I submit to you that there is no truth more vital, central, and basic, not only to our understanding of God's way of salvation but also to preaching the gospel and true Christian experience, than this doctrine.
With these things prefaced, we will proceed to describe the mystical
union, then to show its place in the scheme of salvation and its relation to the benefits
of redemption, and in conclusion to demonstrate some implications for our preaching.
I. The Mystical Union: a definition and description
The mystical union between Christ and believers is one of three mystical unions that are the chief mysteries in the biblical, revealed, Christian religion. The other two are the union of the Trinity of persons in one God-head, and the union of the divine and human natures in one person, Jesus Christ, God and Man.
The Westminster Larger Catechism #26 describes the mystical union in this way:
The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.
This excellent description, I fear, leaves one important element implied, namely, the intensely personal nature of the union. "Union with Christ," Heppe points out, "is a real, wholesale, spiritual and indissoluble union of the person of the elect with the divine-human person of the Redeemer.…"10
Herman Witsius, in his delightful way, describes this union as "...
that mystical and most delightful marriage of the elect soul with Christ."11
The Nature of This Union
It is a spiritual union. The spirituality of this union is
unique. It is not some vague sentimentality, nor is it the Christian brand of
"New-age" spirituality. This is a distinctly Christian spirituality. The
Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is the personal bond who forms this union.
It is a spiritual union between Christ and the believer formed by God the Holy Spirit, as
the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 10; 1 Cor.12:13). The source and bond of this
spiritual union is the Spirit of the Head, who dwells and works in the members.12 Romans
8:9-10 shows that Christ dwells in and with us if His Spirit dwells in us, and He dwells
in us by His Spirit. Richard Sibbes explains why this union is the special province
of the Holy Spirit - as the Spirit of Christ:
In those special works wrought in his Church and on his children, all things come from the Holy Ghost, not simply as the third person, but as 'the Spirit of Christ' - that is, first sanctifying and filling the human nature of Christ, and then sanctifying and filling us. Christ could not give the Holy Ghost immediately to us, as we are at enmity with God and separated from him through our sins. He must first take the Spirit to himself and, having by his death and sufferings reconciled us to his Father and purchased the Spirit for us, he may now give his Spirit to us.…
First he receives the Spirit himself, and the same Spirit that filled and sanctified his human nature also sanctifies his church, which he 'loves even as himself.' As he loves his own human nature, which the Holy Ghost sanctified, so he loves his own mystical body, his church, which is mystically united to him, and he sanctifies it by the same Spirit. Christ, as head of his church, dispenses the Spirit to us.13
It is a real union. The distance between Christ in heaven and believers on earth presents no obstacle to the reality of a spiritual union. Christ is in heaven and we are upon earth, but the Spirit of Christ being omnipresent is able to be the connecting link between us. 14 Through the Spirit not merely a figurative but a real union is effected, so that there is one living principle in the head and the members. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17). Astounding as it is, the same Spirit lives in our exalted Redeemer and in His people on earth; and hence, although separated from Him and from one another, they are but one.15
It is a personal union. The union between Christ and believers is such that their persons are united to His person. This union is not an impersonal and theoretical relatedness, it is a relationship in which there is mutual knowledge, love, communication, and communion in all things. And since Christ cannot be separated from His Father and His Spirit, this union at the same time brings us into communion of the undivided Trinity.16 Indeed, union with Christ marries the church with Christ and realizes God's purpose to establish His everlasting covenant of love and friendship with the people He loves, so that they may say in very truth, "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine" (Song. 6:3).
Obviously, such a personal union has two sides. The Spirit is the bond of union on Christ's side, and faith, produced by the Spirit of faith, is the bond on our side; and when that union is effected, the soul, being grafted into Christ, is like a fruitful branch of the vine bringing forth fruit.17 The personal nature of this union lays the ground and imperative for experimental religion and close dealing with the heart of men in the preaching of the Word of Christ. For the communion of this union must take place "through the Word."
It is mysterious, or mystical. The apostle Paul describes the union between Christ and His church as "a great mystery." It belies scrutiny and definition, for it is, in the true sense of the word, a mystery.18 This union, being a work of the Holy Spirit, "is supernatural, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable.…"19
The Scriptures employ many figures and relationships to reveal something
of the mysterious intimacy and efficacy of this union. These range from a comparison to
the relation existing between stones and a chief corner stone (1Pet. 2:4, 5), a vine and
its branches, a head and the members in the human body, Adam and his posterity, the one
flesh relation of husband and wife, right up to a comparison with the relation between the
three persons of the blessed Trinity (John 14:23; 17:21-23).20 Of course, analogy does not mean identity - we are
no more incorporated into the Godhead than we become branches, rocks, or members of a
physical body.21 Rather, these figures teach us that, of all possible creaturely relations, union
with the Son of God become flesh is far and away the highest. This is a union in which the
inmost soul of the redeemed is reserved for Christ's inhabitation by the Spirit, who thus
becomes the life of their life, the soul of their soul, in a sense to which any other
union makes no approximation.22 23
II. The place of Union to Christ in our Reformed Soteriology
Here we are concerned with how the mystical union fits into God's plan of salvation.
We begin with a brief overview of our confessions.
The mystical union does not come in for direct treatment in the Three
Forms of Unity. It is clearly implied, however, in the beautiful treatment of the Lord's
Supper in the Heidelberg Catechism 76:
What is it then to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ? It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal; but also, besides that, to become more and more united to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding "flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone"; and that we live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.
In his treatment of this catechism Herman Hoeksema gave a beautiful
description of the place and significance of the mystical union:
From Him [Christ] we receive all the spiritual blessings of salvation. And in order to receive them we must be united with Christ, incorporated into Him, become one plant with Him. …We must … be literally joined with Christ, united with Him: we must be in Him, even as He must be in us, in order that He may become our righteousness, holiness, and eternal life, and we may draw out of Him all the blessings of grace.24
In the Westminster Standards, and the Larger Catechism in particular, we find a direct and rather detailed treatment of this doctrine. In fact, the Catechism is built around this doctrine. In order to demonstrate this, we will briefly trace this doctrine through the Larger Catechism.
We are introduced to this truth first in its federal and representative aspects.25
We are led to the fountain of salvation, namely, God's sovereign decree
of predestination and unconditional election, in Christ (L.C. 13).
"God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of His mere love, for the praise of His glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof…." 26
Those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in His electing love apart from union with Christ - for they were chosen in Christ unto union with Christ. In the words of Romans 8:29, we are "predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Then we are taught that salvation "in Christ" is by way of covenant. God, "of His mere love and mercy delivers His elect out of the estate of sin and misery into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace" (L.C. 30). "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect" (L.C. 31). The elect are given to Christ as the covenant Head and united with Him as His mystical body (which body the Catechism distinguishes as the "invisible church," which is "the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head" (L.C. 64). This mystical body is viewed as being "in Him" and "with Him" by representation in all His work of redemption.
Thus the Catechism treats the "federal and representative" aspect of union with Christ. It then proceeds to what can be termed the "spiritual and vital" aspect. 27 The mystical union is treated now in the context of the Holy Spirit's effectual application of redemption and all the benefits of the covenant of grace (L.C. 58).
First, union with Christ is brought to the fore and emphasized as the special benefit applied to and enjoyed by the invisible church (L.C. 65). "What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with Him in grace and glory." Salvation - from grace to glory - is comprehended in union with Christ.
It is emphasized that we do not become actual partakers of Christ until redemption is effectually applied,28 "which is done in effectual calling" (L.C. 66). As Calvin said: "…we possess nothing until we grow into one body with him." "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom. 8:10). Effectual calling is the means. It is viewed as the Spirit's work that is specifically designed to form this union. Thus, it is defined, in part, as: "…the work of God's almighty power and grace whereby … He doth, in His accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by His word and Spirit…" (L.C. 67).
When this union is realized, the Catechism turns to its blessed fruits, namely, communion with Christ in grace and glory. From this point on, the Larger Catechism unfolds this communion through to "the perfect and full communion the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory." Communion with Christ in grace is shown to include: "partaking of the virtue of His mediation, in this justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with Him" (L.C. 69). Communion with Christ in glory is developed in three aspects, and shown to include communion in this life, immediately after death, and as perfected "at the resurrection and day of judgment" (L.C. 82, 86, 90).
Thus, our Reformed faith does not view union to Christ as one step in
our salvation. Rather, it is salvation. Salvation is unfolded as union with
Christ. Our heavenly Father embraces His children in the arms of Christ and brings them to
Himself in grace and glory. It is hard to imagine a more significant place for this
doctrine in our Reformed soteriology.29
The Relation to the Benefits of Redemption
Union issues in communion. We now focus attention specifically upon communion between Christ and believers within the mystical union.
Here our working principle is that salvation, in its totality, must be received out of Christ's fullness, as a thing already prepared and brought to an existence for us in Christ, and treasured up in Him.30 This means that every individual benefit, as a constituent part of that salvation, must flow to us through communion with Christ.31 32 "Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (I Cor. 1:30).
Obviously, we cannot touch upon all the benefits. We limit ourselves to regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.
We begin with regeneration, because it is the very "first work" of the Spirit in the application of redemption.
Regeneration (in its narrow sense) is an immediate, instantaneous work of the Spirit below the consciousness, upon the heart and spiritual nature. It underlies effectual calling, for nothing but irresistible grace can quicken the dead and bring them to Christ in faith. 33 It is specially intended to form spiritual union with Christ for the application of redemption, and for the inhabitation of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2).34 At the moment of regeneration the effectual and permanent workings of the indwelling Spirit commence, Christ is applied, the mystical union is formed, the life of Christ is communicated and a new spiritual principle 35 of faith is implanted in the soul. Thus the foundation is laid for the exercise of saving faith. 36 From that foundation, the indwelling Spirit, now working upon our hearts by and with the gospel, effectually calls forth the exercise of faith unto Jesus Christ.37 Through the gospel He draws us to receive Him, believe in Him, trust in Him, live in Him, love Him, hope in Him, and rejoice in Him;38 and turning from all others, to cleave unto Him alone for justification, sanctification, and glorification. Thus, we are brought to the personal exercise of faith and to a firm and conscious hold on Christ, to "a serious full recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the gospel, as an all-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him.…" 39 And this is accomplished in such a way that none of the glory of this great work belongs to faith, but only to Christ and His Spirit. 40
As an aside here, it may be profitable briefly to apply this distinction
between the principle of faith and the exercise of faith to covenant
children who may be regenerated in early infancy. Let me quote again from Walter Marshal:
We may note, to the glory of the grace of God, that this union is fully accomplished by Christ giving the Spirit of faith to us, even before we act that faith in the reception of Him; because by this grace or Spirit of faith, the soul is inclined and disposed to an active receiving of Christ. And, no doubt, Christ is thus united to many infants, who have the Spirit of faith, and yet cannot act faith because they are not come to the use of their understandings; but those of riper years, that are joined passively to Christ by the Spirit of faith, will also join themselves with Him actively, by the act of faith; and until they act this faith, they cannot know or enjoy their union with Christ, and the comfort of it, or make use of it, in acting any other duties of holiness acceptably in this life. 41
Justification:
Upon being united to Christ as federal, or representative Head, we are
made partakers of His justifying righteousness.42 John Owen hit the spot, when he wrote:
God hath appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it may be made ours.… And this [foundation] is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. …Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God. 43
Adoption:
As with justification, union with Christ forms the immediate foundation
for the blessing of adoption. John Murray well says:
We cannot think of adoption apart from union with Christ. Election in
Christ before the foundation of the world is election unto adoption of sons. Hence union
with Christ and adoption are complementary aspects of this amazing grace. Union with
Christ reaches its zenith in adoption and adoption has its orbit in union with Christ. The
people of God are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17).
Sanctification:
Union with Christ is the source of all sanctifying grace. Everything
necessary to furnish us for the immediate practice of holiness is comprehended in the
fullness of Christ and treasured up for us in Him - and is to be obtained richly by union
and fellowship with Christ. 44
The "new man" has life and grace only by virtue of his communion with Christ in
grace. If we are to be sanctified, it must be by every grace and virtue being first
wrought out and completed in Christ for us, and then imparted to us by His Spirit through
the Word. Our sanctification must take place in fellowship with Christ in the
transforming, assimilating power of His life, making us like Him; every grace of Jesus
Christ reproducing itself in us: "Of his fullness we have all received, and grace for
grace" (John 1:16).45 The reception of Christ's fullness, which is commenced at regeneration, is
carried on throughout the whole course of our life, and will most certainly be completed
in glory: "when we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John
3:2).
Glorification:
"God hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:6). "Our life is hid with Christ in
God" (Col.3:4), so that as joint heirs together with Christ we shall also be
glorified with Him (Rom. 8:17). In Christ there is no disjunction between grace and glory.
Grace is glory in the bud, glory is grace in the blossom. Thus union with Christ in grace
and glory enables us to confess:
At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on His right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with Him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment (L.C. 90).
III. The Implications of this Doctrine to the Preaching
Preaching, of course, has many important subordinate ends, which are all important in their place,46 but all these serve a higher end. All must work toward the realization of the mystical union. Preaching must lead the soul to Christ alone as the object of faith, the source of life and blessing, the yea and amen of every promise. Our great God has no higher end for the preaching than the glory of His name in the salvation of His church in and through Jesus Christ. 47 And this end must be realized through union with Christ.
The preacher, therefore, must set his sights carefully. He must aim at this target, marshalling all his gifts and talents, and consciously adapting all his labors so that they best serve this end. Significantly, our Directory for the Public Worship of God speaks directly to this very point. Under The Preaching of the Word, it reads: "…he [the minister] need not always prosecute every doctrine which lies in his text, so is he wisely to make choice of such uses, as, by his residence and conversing with his flock, he finds most needful and seasonable; and, amongst these, such as may most draw their souls to Christ, the fountain of light, holiness and comfort." Reformed preaching, preaching that is faithful to the whole counsel of God, should consciously aim at drawing souls to Christ. It should adapt itself to that end.
Preaching which aims at this mark that God sets ought, therefore, to manifest at least the following characteristics:
First, an antithetical faithfulness to the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ. This is most necessary, because the truth reveals and falsehood hides Christ. Every error, corruption, compromise, or distortion of the true gospel can only disfigure and obfuscate the person and work of Christ. But in the truth the living Christ is present, appears, and can be known as He really is. Further, every deviation from the pure gospel tends to lead the hearer away from Christ and God's way of salvation in Christ alone. Therefore, the preacher who aims to draw his hearers to Christ, will not tweak the truth to please the hearer. He will be vitally concerned about the truthfulness and faithfulness of his message.
Secondly, it must be genuinely Christ-centered. Preaching that aims at union and communion with Christ must lift Christ up in the midst, in the grace and glory of His person, natures, offices, work, promises, fullness, faithfulness, beauty, and all sufficiency to the needs of poor sinners - so that Christ Himself might draw the hearts of His people unto Himself with cords of love and grace. The preacher must so preach that he can say to his congregation: "Before your eyes Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you" (Gal.3:1). Preaching ought not be content to impart information about Christ and about the gospel and about God's grace and about the call, etc. Rather, the preaching must actually preach Christ, and bring His words to call, encourage, and compel the hearer to come unto Him as the only way of salvation. In this way Christ will be truly present in our preaching, and the Good Shepherd's voice will be heard in the midst: "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt.11:28). Has he not said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27)?
Such preaching must gather up the whole counsel of God while saying with Paul, "I am determined not to know anything among you, save Christ, and him crucified" (1Cor.2:2). No sermon ought to leave the hearer wondering what relation the message had to Christ. This holds true no matter what the text or subject treated - whether it be the law, the Christian home, marriage, creation, the duty of rulers, church government, comfort in death, marriage, mortification of sin, labor, love, faith, hope, or whatever it may be. Every area of life, and every particle of truth, grace, and strength we need for it, is to be had from Christ alone; and the preaching must demonstrate this. Under the preaching of the gospel the flock must "learn Christ" as those who "have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21). At every point, and at every turn, the preaching is to lead to Christ in whom and by whom we must live by faith.
Thirdly, by its very nature, this preaching will have a profoundly
experimental dimension to it. It will teach and unfold what might be called robust
Reformed spirituality. That is a spirituality grounded upon the objective reality of union
with Christ, and which satisfies the mind with truth, warms the affections, and moves the
will to new obedience. It is religion that, at its very heart, says: "Whom having not
seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory. Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your
souls" (1Pet. 1:8-9). Such preaching will be able to draw forth the new life of faith
in a gospel manner at every turn. For it will be engaged in leading the heirs of God
deeper into the strength, joy, and comfort that belong to them in communion with Christ in
grace and glory. 48
Conclusion
In John Murray's words: "Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation." May we be encouraged to make, not the doctrine only but the reality of union with Christ, the one great aim of our ministry - and our Christian life. For this is an end that rises above man to the glory of God's covenant. This doctrine brings us to the Father, in and through God the Son, by God the Holy Spirit.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Mark L. Shand
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the
strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and
orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists,
bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.1
These are the arrogant assertions of Thomas Huxley, the close associate of Charles Darwin and an ardent proponent of his evolutionary theory. The battle between creation and so-called science is still being fought. However, orthodox Christianity, as manifested by the Reformed faith, has not been vanquished by the so-called scientific discoveries proffered by Darwin or his successors. Nonetheless, it would be naive to suggest that the Reformed faith has emerged unscathed from its ongoing battle with so-called science.2 Deep inroads have been made into the Reformed faith. Sadly, the majority of the damage that has been sustained by the church has been self inflicted.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century to the present day, many advocates of the Reformed faith have sought to reconcile the claims of so-called science with the scriptural account of creation. In their attempt to do so, one issue which has generated considerable discussion is whether the first two chapters of Genesis teach not only that God created the world, but also how He created the world. That discussion has spawned other questions, namely, "Did God create all things within the space of six natural days?" or "Are the references to 'days' in Genesis 1 & 2 to be interpreted figuratively?"
These issues are being actively debated within Presbyterian circles in
North America.3 At the center of that debate stands Chapter 4:1 of the Westminster Confession
of Faith, which reads:
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. [Emphasis MS]
The question that is taxing Presbyterian theologians is: What does the Westminster Confession mean when it refers to "in the space of six days"? Is that phrase to be taken literally, or can it be interpreted to allow for the possibility of longer periods of time, perhaps even billions of years? Now one may think that the answer to that question is obvious from a simple reading of the Confession. The conclusion that the Confession is referring to a period of six natural days is inescapable, if the phrase is to be permitted to have its natural meaning. However, the matter is not quite so transparent - at least that is the view of the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary.
Noting with apparent dismay that "in recent years it has been claimed that, in expounding the biblical teaching on creation, to hold anything other than that God created the world in six days, each of 24 hours duration, is (a) to depart from theological orthodoxy and (b) to interpret Scripture in the light of secular science in general and evolutionistic philosophy in particular," the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary released a statement in March 1999 in which they sought to establish that their views accorded with "historic Reformed teaching on this subject." 4 Their efforts were a dismal failure.
In support of their position, the faculty declared:
Committed, as the Seminary is, to the inerrancy of Scripture and standing in the Augustinian and Reformed theological tradition, the precise chronological duration of the six days of creation has never been regarded by the Seminary's Board or Faculty as a matter on which the Scriptures themselves speak with decisive clarity .5
Tragically, the faculty's statement as regards the position of the seminary is true, but that is to its everlasting shame. In any event, the vital question is not whether the current teaching of the seminary accords with what has previously been taught, but whether the seminary's teaching accords with the Reformed tradition as it is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and, more importantly, with Scripture itself.
In their statement, the faculty acknowledges that "The Reformers, it is true, seem to have generally interpreted the days as 'ordinary' days of 24 hours in duration."6 However, they hasten to add, "Yet this position, consciously distanced, as we will see, from Augustine's and Anselm's view of instantaneous creation, never seems to have been regarded as a test of orthodoxy in the reformed churches." 7
In order to fortify their position the faculty makes reference to John
Colet and to what they describe as "a striking illustration of the way in which
biblical scholars wrestled with this issue."8 Colet, it is claimed, "held to a position
approximating to a day-age or even framework interpretation of the days of Genesis."9 The faculty
notes:
Interestingly, he held that Genesis 1 was written in "the manner of a popular poet" [more poetae alicuius popularis]. In the Augustinian tradition, Colet views the precise meaning of the days of Genesis 1 as so difficult to untangle that he writes (tongue in cheek): "nothing could be more like night than these Mosaic days." In addition, he argued that the function of Genesis 1 is precisely not scientific but intended to portray the mystery of creation to the children of Israel in the days of Moses. 10
But who was John Colet? Colet was an English clergyman who died in 1519,
two years after Luther nailed his theses to the door at Wittenburg. The New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church offers this description of him:
Colet shared the Renaissance humanist concern for reforming the clergy and church institutions, and also for furthering enlightened education. He attacked many clerical abuses and though he did not advocate doctrinal reform, the suspicion of heresy was never far from him. Yet he was listened to by a wide circle; among the contemporaries whose thinking he influenced were Erasmus and Sir Thomas More. 11
Given the subject matter under discussion, one may have thought it would have been more germane if the faculty had made reference to the views of a Reformer, or to the views of one of the Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly who advocated a position approximating to the day-age or framework interpretation of the days of Genesis. The faculty's failure to do so is presumably not from lack of desire, but rather from an inability to identify a suitable example.
Turning their attention to the phrase "in the space of six
days," the faculty notes:
Some insist that its inclusion is manifestly intended to exclude anything but the six 24-hour day view. Others maintain that at this point the Standards are simply paraphrasing the language of Scripture and do not address the question of the length of the days. 12
Neither view meets with the complete approval of the faculty, though the latter view is nearer to the truth in their judgment. They acknowledge that "the paraphrase view is doubtful because if the Standards had intended simply to utilize biblical language, 'in six days' would have sufficed and been a more natural choice." 13
What then is the import of the phrase? The faculty contends that the phrase was designed to affirm that the work of creation involved duration, the intent being to exclude the view that creation was instantaneous. In support of that contention, they point to John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1:5 in which he repudiates explicitly the idea of instantaneous creation.
What is the faculty's conclusion?
In view of such examples it seems fair to maintain that the phrase in question in the Standards functions to oppose the error, longstanding at that time, of instantaneous creation. Though the framers of the Standards for the most part held personally to the 24-hour day view, that view, to the exclusion of all others, is not the point of their confessional affirmation. That affirmation, as particularly the inclusion of "the space of" shows, intends not somehow to limit but rather, over against the instantaneous creation view, to emphasize the duration of the creation days. Even though Calvin, Ames, and the authors of the Westminster Standards, with few exceptions, if any, undoubtedly understood the days to be ordinary days, there is no ground for supposing that they intended to exclude any and all other views, in particular the view that the days may be longer. Such views are outside their purview; their concern, in fact, moves in the opposite direction, against the instantaneous view that denies any length.14
Hence, the Confession, which appeared to oppose views which entailed an
old age of the earth, now not only does not oppose such views, but in fact supports them!
Where is this all leading? The faculty makes that plain when they continue:
This point bears emphasizing within the context of the current debate about the days of Genesis. To establish that the Standards mandate the six 24 hour days view requires more than demonstrating that the Divines, perhaps even to a man, held that the days were ordinary days. To demonstrate that of itself establishes nothing. What needs also to be shown, which we believe