BTS Morning Workshop 3

Biblical Theology and Other Theological DisciplinesFriday, 27 July 2018

9:00 am – 10:00 am: Some Case Studies: A Look at Augustine and John Calvin

AugustineAugustine is arguably the greatest theologian in history. He is unarguably one of the greatest!From North Africa, he lived from A.D. 354-430. He was educated in Northern Africa, and then Italy. He lived in Rome and Milan and elsewhere in Rome, but would eventually end up in Hippo—as a pastor and bishop, where he spent the last three decades or so of his life—pastoring and writing. We are Evangelicals, so our relationship to Augustine is interesting. He was a Roman Catholic, but his doctrine of grace is essentially the backbone of the Protestant Reformation. When Evangelicals today speak of sovereign grace, efficacious grace, the priority of grace, and the grace of God which works the perseverance of the saints, they are squarely in Augustine’s world.But nonetheless, Evangelicals are not “Augustinians” if by that is meant the Evangelicals follow Augustine on all (or even most) points.B.B. Warfield probably still has it right:“The Reformation, inwardly considered, was the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church.”What are some of Augustine’s insights which might help us grasp the importance of obedience in the Christian life?

Key Insights from Augustine

1. The priority of grace2. The efficacious nature of grace3. The persevering and desire-transforming and life-transforming nature of grace4. The nature of rewards

1. The priority of grace

This then is the purpose of God, of which it is said, “He works together all things for good for those who are called according to purpose.” Subsequent grace indeed assists a human’s good purpose, but the good purpose would not itself exist if grace did not work first.

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.22

Please submit queries and feedback to info@ggf.org.myVisit GGF.ORG.MY for more info

In arguing against Julian of Eclanum, Augustine challenges Julian’s notion that God simply “helps” us with grace. He writes:For why have you failed to say that a person is roused by God’s grace to good work, as you have indeed said that he is aroused to evil by the suggestions of the devil? Why have you merely said that a person is always ‘helped’ in a good work by God’s grace? As if by his own will, and without any grace of God, he understood a good work and, then was divinely helped in the work itself, on account of the virtues of his good will. In that case, grace is rendered s something due, rather than given as a gift—and so grace is no longer grace. . . . .

. . . . But who is “drawn,” if he was already willing? And yet no-one comes unless he is willing. Therefore in wondrous ways a person is drawn into a state of willingness, by Him who knows how to work within the very hearts of human beings. Not that unwilling people are made to believe, which cannot be. Rather, unwilling people are made willing.

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.37

When we make a good “resolution,” it is because God has been at work:They need to understand and confess that even that good resolution itself, which grace then comes and assists, could not have existed in a person if grace had not gone before it. How can there be a good resolution in someone without the mercy of God going first, since it is the good will which is itself prepared by the Lord?

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.13-14

Augustine can also write:So then, in everything where anyone does anything in accordance with God, God’s mercy works first.

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.13-14

Augustine uses this passage a number of times in his anti-Pelagian writings. At one point he writes:But Who causes people to be good? Only He Who said, “And I will visit them and make them good,” and “I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe

my judgments, and to do them” (Ezek. 36:27). . . . We walk, true enough, and we observe, and we do; but it is God Who makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God making us good; this is

His mercy going before us. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.15

For Augustine, our desire for good is always preceded by God’s grace:For if the desire for good begins from ourselves without God’s grace, virtue itself will have begun—and to this virtue, the assistance of grace then comes, as if it were owed. Thus God’s grace is not bestowed freely, but is given according to our virtue.

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.18

Augustine can write about the priority of God’s grace:Indeed, a person does not even begin to be changed from evil to good by the first stirrings of faith, unless the free and gratuitous mercy of God produces this in him . . . . So, therefore, we should think of God’s grace as working from the beginning of a person’s changing towards goodness, even to the end of its completion, so that he who glories may glory in the Lord. For just as no-one can bring goodness to perfection without the Lord, so no-one can begin it without the Lord.

2

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.23

Finally, it is clear with Augustine that we do not merit grace—may it never be! He writes:So, unless the will itself be freed by the grace of God from the servitude whereby it has become the slave of sin, and unless it be helped so that it may overcome defects, it is impossible for mortal men to live righteously and piously. And if this divine assistance, whereby the will is freed, were granted for its merits, it would not be a ‘grace’–a gratuitous gift–for it would have preceded the willing.

Retractations, I, 9.2-4

2. The Efficacy of Grace

Augustine speaks in many different ways about the efficacy of the grace of God. Grace not only comes first, it also accomplishes its purpose. Augustine writes:It is certain that we keep the commandments if we will. But because “the will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, Septuagint), we must ask Him for such a force of the will that is sufficient to make us act by willing. Again, it is certain that when we will, we are the ones who do the willing. But it is god who causes us to will what is good, of whom it is said (as he has just now expressed it), “The will is prepared by the Lord.” . . . . Again, it is certain that when we act, we are the ones who act. But it is God who causes us to act, by applying efficacious powers to our will . . .

On Grace and Free Will 32.

Augustine speaks to the efficacy of grace when we comments on John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me”.

He writes:But who can fail to see that a person’s coming or not coming is by the choice of his will? If a person does not come to Christ, he has simply made his choice not to come. But if he does come, it cannot be without assistance—such assistance that he not only knows what it is he ought to do, but actually does what he knows.

In this same passage Augustine addresses what it means for Christ to “teach”—especially to teach those who will come to Christ. Augustine writes:And so, when God teaches, it is not by the letter of the law, but by the grace of the Spirit. Moreover, He teaches so that whatever a person learns, he not oly sees it with is perception, but also desires it with his choice, and accomplishes it in action. Byt this method of divine instruction, our very choosing itself, and our very performance itself, are assisted, and not merely our natural “capacity” of willing and performing. . . . Now Pelagius says that the possibility of coming lies not in our nature. . . . [H]e [Pelagius] holds that our actual coming to Christ lies in our will and act. Now just because a person may come to Christ, it does not follow that he actually comes, unless he has also willed and acted to come.

And Augustine’s final words here are very important:But everyone who has learned from the Father not only has the possibility of coming, but actually comes! And in this result are already included the use of the capacity, the affection of the will, and the effect of the action.

On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1.27

3

3. The Persevering and Desire-Transforming and Life-Transforming Nature of Grace

Augustine can speak repeatedly about how it is God who enables us to what we ought. For example, Augustine can write:

The true meaning of grace, however, is the love that God breathes into us, which enables us with a holy delight to carry out the duty that we know.

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.11

“the grace of God both for beginning and for persevering up to the end is not given according to our merits, but is given according to his most hidden and at the same time most just, most wise, and most beneficent will.”1

In speaking of those who have come to Christ, Augustine also consistently affirms the centrality of desire, delight and affections as central. We, on the other hand, say that the human will is helped to achieve righteousness in this way: Besides the fact that human beings are created with free choice of the will and besides the teaching by which they are commanded how they ought to live, they receive the Holy Spirit so that there arises in their minds a delight in and a love for that highest and immutable good that is God.2

He continues, unless we find delight in it and love it, we do not act, do not begin, do not live good lives. But so that we may love it, the love of God is poured out in our hearts, not by free choice which comes from ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom 5:5).”3

We want to do godly things for God has transformed our desires. “For the good begins to be desired when it begins to become sweet.”4

And Augustine is clear that the desire comes from the Lord:[A] human being would not have the desire for the good from the Lord, if it were not good, but if it is good, we have it from no one but from him who is supremely and immutably good. For what is the desire for good but the love about which the apostle John speaks without any ambiguity when he says, Love is from God (1 Jn 4:7)? Nor does its beginning come from us and its completion come from God; rather, if love is from God, we have the whole of it from God.5

Augustine continues, making the point that the sweetness itself comes from the Lord: the blessing of sweetness is the grace of God by which he brings it about in us that we find delight in and we desire, that is, that we love, what he commands us. If God does not go before us with this grace, we not only do not complete, but we do not even begin to do what he commands. After all, if we can do nothing without him,†26 we obviously can neither begin it nor bring it to completion. For

1 The Gift of Perseverance 13,33.2 On the Spirit and Letter 5.

3 On the Spirit and Letter 5.

4 Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 21.5 Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 21.

4

scripture said, His mercy will go before me (Ps 59:11) so that we might begin it, and it said, His mercy will follow after me (Ps 23:6) so that we might complete it.6

Likewise, God gives us a delight in Himself: the good begins to be desired when it begins to be sweet . . . therefore the blessing of sweetness is the grace of God, whereby we are made to delight in and to desire, that is, to love, what he commands us.7 Christians persevere because they want to persevere, even if—for Augustine—all they can ultimately do is persevere. Augustine writes:Now in the case of the saints who are predestined to the kingdom of God by the grace of God, the assistance of perseverance which is given is not that [granted to the first man], but that kind which brings the gift of actual perseverance. It is not just that they cannot persevere without this gift; once they have received this gift, they can no nothing except persevere.8

And the will is central. Thus, in speaking of his experience leading up to his conversion, Augustine can write, “At this point the power to act is identical with the will.”9

For Augustine we do not even begin to do good works unless God moves in us. He writes: But because we cannot do good works unless helped by his gift, as the apostle says, For it is God

who produces in you both the will and the action in accord with good will (Phil 2:13), we shall not be able to rest after all our good works that we do in this life unless we have been made holy and perfect for eternity by his gift. Hence, scripture says of God himself that, after he had made all things very good, he rested on the seventh day from all the works which he made (Gen. 1:31 and 2:2). For that day signified the future rest that he was going to give us human beings after our good works. After all, just as when we do good works, he by whose gift we do good works is said to work within us, so when we rest, he by whose gift we rest is said to rest.10

Augustine holds that who someone is is determined by the nature of their loves. We ought to love the right thing (not the wrong thing), and we ought to love the right thing in the right way. Augustine writes: “for he is not justly called a good man who knows what is good, but who loves it. Is it not then obvious that we love in ourselves the very love wherewith we love whatever good we love? For there is also a love wherewith we love that which we ought not to love: and this love is hated by him who loves that wherewith he loves what ought to be loved.”11

4. The Nature of Rewards

We have saved this last Augustinian insight for last, because it will make more sense in light of the first three insights.

6 Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 21.7 Against Two Pelagian Letters 2.21. Likely Needham translation.

8 On Admonition and Grace XII.34.9 Confessions VIII.viii.20.10 Letter 55 10.19.

11 City of God XI.28.5

Augustine hits head on the nature of “rewards.” Does God reward people on the basis of what they do? We will suggest on the last night of the “Creation to Consummation” talk that this is certainly Paul’s argument (Romans 2). Augustine interprets Paul to say that there are “rewards” for the Christian based on their life. Here is what Augustine says:‘Despise not the works of thy hands; see in me thy work, not mine. For if thou seest mine, thou wilt condemn it. If thou seest thine own, thou wilt crown it. For whatever good works are mine are from thee.’12

Augustine can write in Grace and Free Will: ‘To one who thinks that way it is, of course, said with complete truth: God crowns his gifts, not your merits, if your merits come from yourself, not from him. For, if your merits come from yourself, they are evil merits which God does not crown, but if they are good, they are God’s gifts.’13 In the same work Augustine writes:“Where he could have said, and said correctly, ‘The wages of righteousness is eternal life,’ he preferred to say, But the grace of God is eternal life, in order that we might understand from this that God brings us to eternal life, not in return for our merits, but out of his mercy. Of him the man of God says to his soul in the psalm, He crowns you in his pity and mercy (Ps 103:4). Is not a crown given as recompense for good works? But God produces these good works in good people, for scripture says of him, For it is God who produces in you both the willing and the action in accord with good will (Phil 2:13). And this is reason that the psalm says, He crowns you in his pity and mercy, for we who receive a crown as our recompense do good works because of his mercy.”14

Similarly, in one sermon Augustine could write: “So when God crowns your merits, he is not crowning anything but his own gifts.”15 John Calvin

John Calvin was a Frenchman, born in 1509, and died in 1564. He is known for his reforming ministry in French-speaking Geneva, though he also lived in places like Strasbourg. He is perhaps most-well known for his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, published in both French and Latin multiple times from 1536-1659.The Reformers, including Calvin, had a number of reasons to speak candidly and clearly on the question of works and obedience. One of these was that since the Reformers argued tenaciously for justification by faith alone apart from works, they could be accused of saying that works and obedience did not matter. They were in fact not saying this, but they were accused of it.We will note two key insights from Calvin:1. The two-fold grace, uniting justification and sanctification2. The justification of the believer’s works

1. The two-fold grace, uniting justification and sanctification

12 Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 137:18. Quoted in John Calvin, Institutes III.XIV.20. 13 Augustine, Grace and Free Choice, 81. 14 Augustine, Grace and Free Choice, 84.15 Augustine, Sermon 333, 201.

6

Perhaps one of Calvin’s most significant insights in terms of soteriology is related to his understanding of “union with Christ,” and how this relates to both justification and sanctification.For Calvin, faith alone united the believer with grace. Then, flowing from this union are (1) justification and (2) sanctification.Thus, justification and sanctification are so organically and inextricably connected, that they simply cannot separated.Calvin can write: “where zeal for integrity and holiness are not in vigor, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ Himself; and wherever Christ is not, there is no righteousness, nay, there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit for sanctification.”16

Listen to Calvin again:“We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ never is where His Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration.”17

And especially here:“Justification and sanctification, gifts of grace, go together as if tied by an inseparable bond, so that if anyone tries to separate them, he is, in a sense, tearing Christ to pieces. Sanctification doesn’t just flow from justification, so that one produces the other. Both come from the same Source. Christ justifies no one whom He does not also sanctify. By virtue of our union with Christ, He bestows both gifts, the one never without the other."18

2. The justification of the believer’s works.

So, works matter in the Christian life, but is there any connection between (1) a future aspect of justification, and (2) our works.Here Calvin is especially fascinating.Calvin writes: ‘Though works are highly esteemed, they have their value from God’s approval rather than from their own worth.’19 Works are of value, but not in and of themselves. Similar to how Augustine could affirm that God ‘crowns His own gifts,’ Calvin proceeds to argue that the value or worth of works lie first and foremost in God’s approval of them. Indeed, in this same section he writes: ‘it is from God’s beneficence that they are considered worthy both of the name of righteousness and of the reward thereof.’20 Calvin is more pointed a bit later: ‘all human works, if judged according to their own worth, are nothing but filth and defilement.’21

16 John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 68.17 John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 67 or 68.18 John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Volume XX, Baker, 1993, p. 93.19 Ibid. III.XI.20.20 Ibid. III.XI.20.21 Ibid. III.XII.4.

7

For Calvin, any works produced by the unconverted person spring from a sinful heart, and the works are in fact sins: ‘in men not yet truly sanctified works manifesting even the highest splendor are so far away from righteousness before the Lord that they are reckoned sins.’22 Indeed: ‘works please him only when the person has previously found favor in his sight.’23 For Calvin, any worth that can be ascribed to our works is inextricably linked to a person’s relationship to Christ. Thus Calvin: ‘surely, no works of ours can of themselves render us acceptable and pleasing to God; nor can even the works themselves please him, except to the extent that a man, covered by the righteousness of Christ, pleases God and obtains forgiveness of sins.’ 24 Similarly: ‘Works can only arouse God’s vengeance unless they be sustained by his merciful pardon.’25 Works are indeed God’s gift, and because they are gifts from God, they are not to be despised. Calvin quotes Augustine approvingly: ‘despise not the works of thy hands; see in me thy work, not mine. For if thou seest mine, thou wilt condemn it. If thou seest thine own, thou wilt crown it. For whatever good works are mine are from thee.’26 Works as “Inferior Causes” of our Salvation?

Like others in the Reformed tradition who will follow him, Calvin can speak of works as ‘inferior causes’ of our salvation, and this is all couched against the theological backdrop of the sovereign grace of God: ‘Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works.’27 Calvin is of course well aware that he might be misunderstood at this crucial point, and he writes: “What goes before in the order of dispensation he calls the cause of what comes after. In this way he sometimes derives eternal life from works, not intending it to be ascribed to them; but because he justifies those whom he has chosen in order at last to glorify them [Rom. 8:30], he makes the prior grace, which is a step to that which follows, as it were the cause. But whenever the true cause is to be assigned, he does not enjoin us to take refuge in works but keeps us solely to the contemplation of his mercy.28

Again, God views and judges our works first and foremost as God’s gifts to us. Calvin writes:

22 Ibid. III.XIV.8.23 Ibid. III.XIV.9.24 Ibid. III.XIV.13.25 Ibid. III.XIV.16.26 Ibid. III.XIV.20. Calvin is quoting Augustine on Psalm 137:18. The translation of Augustine (in Calvin 1960) is from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 27 Ibid. III.XIV.21.28 Ibid.

8

Yet because he examines our works according to his tenderness, not his supreme right, he therefore accepts them as if they were perfectly pure; and for that reason, although unmerited, they are rewarded with infinite benefits, both of the present life and also of the life to come.29

Calvin then makes a fascinating comment:For I do not accept the distinction made by learned and otherwise godly men that good works deserve the graces that are conferred upon us in this life, while everlasting salvation is the reward of faith alone. For the Lord almost always lodges in heaven the reward of toil and the crown of battle.30

Calvin argues:“No one is justified by works [cf. Rom. 3:20]—on the contrary, that men are justified without any help from our works. But it is one thing to discuss what value works have of themselves, another, to weigh in what place they are to be held after faith righteousness has been established.”31

Calvin asks:“Whether God leaves as they were by nature those whom he justifies, changing none of their vices.”He answers:‘This is exceedingly easy to answer: as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely, righteousness and sanctification . . .’32 Works and Justification?

What does Calvin say about the place of works in relation to justification? Calvin argues that good works in and of themselves have little value. Indeed: “In teaching that all our righteous deeds are foul in God’s sight unless these derive a good odor from Christ’s innocence, Scripture consistently dissuades us from confidence.’33

Rather, Calvin labors to draw out the link between (1) saving faith and (2) how works are appraised. Thus Calvin can write: “the good works done by believers are accounted righteous, or, what is the same thing, are reckoned as righteous [Rom. 4:22].’34

The same theme keeps resurfacing: one can only make sense of the place of works in the lives of Christians if one first maintains the centrality and inviolability of justification by faith alone. So Calvin:“For unless the justification of faith remains whole and unbroken, the uncleanness of works will be uncovered.’35

29 Ibid. III.XV.4. Emphasis mine.30 Ibid.31 Ibid. III.XVII.832 Calvin 1851: III. 244; quoted in Lillback 2007: 64.33 Calvin 1960: III.XV.16.34 Ibid. III.XVII.8.35 Ibid. III.XVII.9

9

The key for Calvin is that not only is the person justified by faith alone, one’s actions (or works) are justified by faith alone: It is no absurdity that man is so justified by faith that not only is he himself righteous but his works are also accounted righteous above their worth.”36

Calvin states:“Therefore, as we ourselves, when we have been engrafted in Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christ’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified.”37

He continues:“Now if this works righteousness—whatever its character— depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this, it ought to be included under faith and be subordinated to it, so to speak, as effect to cause, so far is it from having any right to be raised up either to destroy or becloud justification of faith.”38

Indeed:“Those works, defiled as well with other transgressions as with their own spots, have no other value except that the Lord extends pardon to both, that is, to bestow free righteousness upon man.”39

When dealing with passages which treat ‘recompense according to works,’ Calvin writes: “[H]e receives his own into life by his mercy alone. Yet, since he leads them into possession of it through the grace of good works in order to fulfill his own work in them according to the order that he has laid down, it is no wonder if they are said to be crowned according to their own works, by which they are doubtless prepared to receive the crown of immortality.”40

This leads Calvin to speak about the role or purpose of good works. Calvin asserts: “He wills that we be trained through good works to meditate upon the presentation or fruition, so to speak, of those things which he has promised, and to hasten through them to seek the blessed hope held out to us in heaven.”41 For Calvin, eternal life (in the ultimate sense) is the “fruition” of a blessedness we first received apart from works.42 Similarly, he writes that it is appropriate… “if we regard holiness of life to be the way, not indeed that gives access to the glory of the Heavenly Kingdom, but by which those chosen by their God are led to its disclosure.”43

36 Ibid.37 Ibid.38 Ibid.39 Ibid. III.XVII.15.40 Ibid. III.XVIII.1.41 Ibid. III.XVIII.3.42 Ibid.43 Ibid. 4.

10

Calvin affirms with Augustine (from Augustine’s On Grace and Free Choice): ‘how could there be righteousness unless the grace that “justifies the ungodly” had gone before?’ However, Calvin says he wants to add something to Augustine’s understanding: “How could he impute righteousness to our works unless his compassion covered over whatever unrighteousness was in them? And how could he judge them worthy of reward save that he wiped out by his boundless kindness what in them deserves punishment?”44

Calvin’s comments on key texts in Romans are worthy of attention. Concerning Rom. 2:6 (‘He will render to each one according to his works’), Calvin writes: “there is not so much difficulty in this verse, as it is commonly thought.”45

For Calvin (again in an Augustinian key), it is the case regarding God: “as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit . . .”46

Indeed: “for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. . . . [I]t is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from reward.47 Calvin’s logic is critically important. There can be a (proper!) ‘crowning’ of good works, without having to smuggle ‘merit’ into the equation. But justification by faith apart from works remains central throughout man’s entire path of salvation: “man is not only justified freely once for all, without any merit of works, but that on this gratuitous justification the salvation of man perpetually depends. 48

10:15 am – 11:15 am: Some Case Studies: Francis Turrentin and John Owen

This hour let us turn to two towering theologians from the 17th century: Francis Turretin and John Owen.

Francis TurretinLet us go now from Calvin to someone of the next century, the 17 th century: Francis Turretin—or “Turretini” if you are Italian. Turretin was an Italian who embraced the Reformation. He ultimately left Italy, since the reform movement was not ultimately welcomed there.His most well known work is his three-volume Institutes of Elenchtic Theology. “Elenchtic” is a word denoting “refuting.” In this three-volume he would outline his own theological understand often by contrasting it with options he would oppose or refute.Like Thomas Aquinas from the 13th century, he would pose a question, and then respond to it with, generally starting with something like “we affirm” or “we deny”—then fleshing out his answer.Let’s take up a key question Turretin asks about the nature of works in the Christian life.

44 Ibid. III.XVIII.5.45 Calvin 1981: 19(2), 89.46 Ibid. 89-90.47 Ibid. 90.48 John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, A Reformation Debate, 60.

11

Turretin asks: “Are good works necessary for salvation?” His answer: “we affirm.”He will argue that works are not required in a meritorious sense, but they are nonetheless necessary for salvation. Turretin writes: “Are they required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold.”48

(2: 702). Indeed: “Although the proposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation’ can certainly be misunderstood and misapplied, ‘it can be retained without danger if properly explained.”49 Again: “Although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them. . . .”50

Turretin is clear: “Although God by his special grace wishes these duties of man to be his blessings (which he carries out in them), still the believer does not cease to be bound to observe it, if he wishes to be a partaker of the blessings of the covenant.”51 For Turretin, Christ frees us to obey him: “Christ, by freeing us from the curse and rigor of the law, still did not free us from the obligation to obedience, which is indispensable from the creature. Grace demands the same thing.”52 Works are necessary to the obtaining of glory: “For since good works have the relation of the means to the end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Matt. 5:8); of the “way” to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 3:14); of the ‘sowing’ to the harvest (Gal. 6:7, 8); of the ‘first fruits’ to the mass (Rom. 8:23); of labor to the reward (Matt. 20:1); of the ‘contest’ to the crown (2 Tim. 2:4; 4:8), everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).”53 (2: 705). So: For Turretin . . . While we are justified by faith (he clearly states this numerous places), works are still necessary

for salvation. Works are not necessary in a meritorious sense, but they are nonetheless necessary. Works are “ways and means of possessing [ultimate] salvation.” This is absolutely essential to

grasp. Turretin can affirm that works are necessary as ways and means for possessing ultimate salvation.

Turretin can say that (1) works are not necessary for the acquisition of salvation, but that (2) works are necessary to the obtainment of salvation. What Turretin seems to be saying (if we flesh him out a bit) here is (1) works play no part in helping the Christian to first acquire salvation (at the beginning), but that (2) once one is in saving covenantal relationship with God, works are necessary for ultimate obtainment of salvation.

48 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1997), 702.

49 Ibid., 702-703.50 Ibid., 703.51 Ibid., 703.52 Ibid., 704.53 Ibid., 705.

12

In short: works are a means to and end (ultimate salvation). And these works are things that God “carries out in” the Christian.

One could lose one’s way here, and let’s try not to.Turretin, of course, given his own theological conviction, would also say the following (though not both are said fully and explicitly here):1. God efficaciously works in his people (i.e., Philippians 2:12-13), such that (1) God’s people “work”

and obey God, and (2) these actions are sovereignly and efficaciously brought about by God.2. Our obedience to God must always be seen in and through our union with Christ (God sees us in

and through our union with Christ, and being clothed in Christ’s righteousness).John Owen

John Owen is perhaps one the best known of the 17th century English Puritans. He would spend time at Oxford, and would even serve as chaplain under the “Lord Protector” of England, Oliver Cromwell.There is much we could say about Owen, but I want to draw attention to the way he affirms the necessity of works and obedience in the Christian life. We draw mainly from his classic work, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated.54 We will see some echoes to Turretin here.Owen is particularly helpful for our purposes, because it is while he is defending a classic Protestant understanding of justification that he writes such helpful things regarding the necessity of works and obedience in the Christian life. Owen can write that all affirm the importance of “personal obedience,” even if different persons state their positions differently:“whereas the necessity of owning a personal obedience in justified persons, is on all hands absolutely agreed, the seeming difference that is herein, concerns not the substance of the doctrine of justification, but the manner of expressing our conceptions concerning the order of the disposition of God’s grace, and our own duty, to edification, wherein I shall use my own liberty, as it is meet others should do theirs.55”Owen is clear that justification is central, and the Christian’s justification is complete when someone puts their faith in Christ. Nonetheless, a necessary obedience will flow from this saving faith:“Upon this complete justification, believers are obliged to universal obedience to God.’56 Saving faith is a working faith:“It is true that faith herein, works and acts itself in and by godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self-judging, and abhorrence, fervency in prayer and supplications, with an humble waiting for an answer of peace from God, with engagements to renewed obedience.”57

54 Those older writer often loved long titles!55 John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained,

Confirmed, and Vindicated (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 162.

56 Ibid. 164.57 Ibid. 167-68.

13

Faith works, but Owen also wants to say there is a “progress” in our “justified estate”—a progress flowing from faith alone: “So our whole progress in our justified estate in all the degrees of it is ascribed to faith alone.’58

Owen explicates his own position:“All other duties of obedience accompany faith in the continuation of our justified estate, as necessary effects and fruits of it, but not as causes, means, or conditions whereon that effect is suspended.59

So, for Owen:There are duties of obedience, these duties (1)accompany faith in the “continuation of our justified estate,” and these duties of obedience are necessary “effects and and fruits of” our justified estate, but (2) such works are not causes, means, or conditions, which, if lacking, would suspend our justified estate.That is: Owen things works are necessary for continuation in our justified estate, but does not like to think of such necessary works as “causes, “means,” or “conditions” for such continuation in one’s justified estate.Owen can write:“That God requires in and by the gospel a sincere obedience of all who believe, to be performed in and by their own persons, though through the aids of grace supplied to them by Jesus Christ. He requires indeed obedience, duties, works of righteousness in and of all persons whatever. . . . But that the works inquired after are necessary to all believers, is granted by all.60 Indeed, Owen is happy to say that the one with true faith will indeed exercise themselves in “godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation for sin . . .”61 These duties “are so far necessary unto the continuation of our justification, as that a justified estate cannot consist with the sins and vices that are opposite to them.”62 In a particularly strong statement Owen can write:“And wherever this inquiry is made, not how a sinner guilty of death and obnoxious to the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted and justified, which is by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed to him; but how a man that professes evangelical faith, or faith in Christ, shall be tried, judged, and whereon as such he shall be justified, we grant that it is and must be by his own personal sincere obedience.”63

Atonement, the Holy Spirit, and Our Works and Obedience

Owen is especially helpful when writing on mortification. At the end, he links together (1) the atoning work of Christ, (2) how the Holy Spirit applies the atoning work of Christ to us, and (3) how these first two realities bring about our works, obedience, and mortification.Owen can write:“Mortification of sin is peculiarly from the death of Christ. It is one peculiar, yea, eminent end of the death of Christ, which shall assuredly be accomplished by it. He died to destroy the works of the

58 Ibid. 168.59 Ibid. 171.60 Ibid. 174.61 Ibid. 168.62 Ibid. 168-69.63 Ibid. 180.

14

devil; whatever came upon our natures by his first temptation, whatever received strength in our persons by his daily suggestions, Christ died to destroy it all.”64

Owen writes on Heb. 2:18, which reads: “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” In short Jesus’ ‘ability’ to help us flows from his sufferings on the cross. Owen writes: ‘And this [i.e., “coming to the aid of those who are tempted”], by virtue of his death, in various and several degrees, shall be accomplished. Hence, our washing, purging and cleansing, is everywhere ascribed to his blood (1 Jn. 1:7; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:5).’65 He continues: “Christ, by his death, destroying the works of the devil, procuring the Spirit for us, hath so killed sin as to its reign in believers, that it shall not obtain its end and dominion.”66 In his own gloss on Rom. 6:2 (‘How can we who died to sin still live in it?’), Owen writes: “Dead to sin by profession; dead to sin by obligation to be so; dead to sin by participation of virtue and power for the killing of it; dead to sin by union and interest in Christ, in and by whom it is killed: how shall we live therein?” 67 Owen continues: “The Spirit alone brings the cross of Christ into our hearts with its sin-killing power; for by the Spirit are we baptized into the death of Christ.”68 Some helpful material . . . The Spirit brings the sin-killing power of the cross into our lives. When Jesus died he did indeed die to make it possible for us to cross over from death to life. But the death of Jesus also is the font or source of our ability to mortify the deeds of the body, to

fight sin, to “work” and to obey our good God.

64 Owen 2002: 177.65 Ibid. 177.66 Ibid. 179.67 Ibid. 84.68 Ibid. 86.

15

11:30 am – 12:30 pm: Some Case Studies: Jonathan Edwards, Geehardus Vos, and Richard Gaffin

For our last hour of today’s workshop we will take three brief looks at three key Christian theologians:- Jonathan Edwards - Geerhardus Vos - Richard Gaffin

Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards has been called the greatest theologian America has ever produced, and this could very well be the case.Edwards lived in the northeast of the USA in the 18 th century. He wrote many volumes, and is read with profit.I want to look at a couple aspects of his thought only today:1. His understanding of nature of justification2. His understanding of the “big-picture” of redemption

1. Jonathan Edwards and Justification

Jonathan Edwards was both a “traditional” Protestant, but also one who was willing to re-think this or that doctrinal formulation. Perhaps we see this with his doctrine of justification. He thought that his “own” theologians—the Protestant Reformed—had not owned up to the future aspect of justification as much as he thought they should.I have here a longer quote from Edwards:Though perseverance is acknowledged by Calvinian divines to be necessary to salvation, yet it seems to me that the manner in which it is necessary has not been sufficiently set forth. ‘Tis owned to be necessary as a sine qua non; and also is expressed by that, that though it is not that by which we first come to have a title to eternal life, yet it is necessary in order to the actual possession of it, as the way to it; that it is impossible that we should come to it without perseverance, as ‘tis impossible for a man to go to a city or town without traveling throughout the road that leads to it. But we are really saved by perseverance, so that salvation has a dependence on perseverance, as that which influences in the affair, so as to render it congruous that we should be saved. Faith is the great condition of salvation; ‘tis that BY which we are justified and saved, as ‘tis what renders it congruous that we should be looked upon as having a title to salvation. But this faith on which salvation thus depends, and the perseverance that belongs to it, is one thing in it that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that such a qualification gives to salvation. Faith is that which renders it congruous that we should be accepted to a title to salvation. And it is so on the account of certain properties in, or certain things that belong to, it; and this is one of them, viz. its perseverance.”69

Edwards can forthrightly write: “But we are really saved by perseverance, so that salvation has a dependence on perseverance, as that which influences in the affair, so as to render it congruous that we should be saved.”Indeed: Perseverance is so essential to ultimate salvation that Edwards can write that without perseverance “it would not be fit that a sinner should be accepted to salvation.”70

69 Ibid. 353-54.16

Perhaps most provocatively, in relating perseverance to justification, Edwards writes: “Perseverance indeed comes into consideration even in the justification of a sinner, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends.” Edwards continues: “For though a sinner is justified on his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance, as being virtually in that first act; and ‘tis looked upon as if it were a property of the faith, by which the sinner is then justified.”71 This is provocative, but Edwards is clearly dealing with the kinds of texts we have looked at that, which all seem to affirm the clear necessity of works, obedience, and faithfulness in the Christian life.2. Jonathan Edwards’ Understanding of the “Big-Picture” of Redemption

Edwards actually started to write his own “Biblical Theology”, but died before finishing it. But before he died, his basic outline—now published as A History of the Work of Redemption—was 100s of pages long! It is a good place to get a sense of Edwards the Biblical Theologian.Edwards can speak of redemption in narrower and in a broader sense. The “narrower” sense (not used negatively here) is more limited to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus—and certainly that is the heart of the matter! But Edwards can also speak of redemption in a “broader” sense. In this broader sense, “The work of redemption is a work that God carries on from the fall of man to the end of the world.”72 Edwards can also write that “salvation is the sum of all those works of God by which the benefits that are by the covenant of grace are procured and bestowed.’73

For Edwards, there was always a larger end or goal in God’s plan for the world. We can even go back to creation itself. Edwards can write: “The creating of heaven was in order to the Work of Redemption; it was to be an habitation for the redeemed and the Redeemer.”74

To get to the heart of matter, the goal of redemption (even when God created the world) was not to simply allow persons to cross over from the “lost” to the “saved” list—as important as that is. Rather, God had a plan to form a people, here in Edwards spoken in terms of bringing it about the created order would serve as a habitation for the redeemed. In short, God desired to form a people who would be transformed, and would dwell in God’s presence. God’s goal was to build a temple, and the temple (=the people of God) must be appropriate, clean, etc., to be in God’s presence. This imples the transformation of believers, which in turns an ethical or moral transformation: obeying the Lord who made them.I include one more quote from Edwards:The Work of Redemption with respect to the grand design in general as it relates to the universal subject and end of it, is carried on from the fall of man to the end of the world in a different manner, not merely by the repeating and renewing the same effect on the different subjects of it, but by many successive works and dispensations of God, all tending to one great end and effect, all united as the several parts of a scheme, and altogether making up one great work. Like an house or temple that is building, first the workmen are sent forth, then the materials are gathered, then the ground fitted, then the foundation is laid, then the superstructure erected one part after another, till at length the topstone is laid. And all is finished. Now the Work of Redemption in that large sense that has been

70 Ibid. 354-55.

71 Ibid. 354.

72 Jonathan Edwards, as A History of the Work of Redemption, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 9, ed. J. F. Wilson (New Haven, Connecticutt: Yale University Press, 1989), 116. 73 Ibid., 115.74 Ibid., 118.

17

explained may be compared to such a building that is carrying on from the fall of man to the end of the world.75

Geerhardus Vos and Richard Gaffin

Geerhardus lived in the past part of the 19 th century, and the first half of the 20th century. He is well-known for his work Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament, and he served as the first Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, in Princeton, New Jersey. I include Richard Gaffin as well. Dr. Gaffin taught both Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary for many years, and is only recently retire. I include Vos and Gaffin together due to the similarity of their approaches and due to the fact that Gaffin was one of the more prominent recent theologians who worked in the Vos tradition, and even helped edit some of Vos’ works, and bring them to a broader audience.With Vos, I want to draw attention to just a couple of things:1. Vos’ understandstanding of the relationship between justification and human transformation.2. Vos’ understanding of the “appropriateness” of obedience.

1. Vos and the Relationship Between Justification and Human Transformation

Vos is wanting to relate (1) a traditional Protestant understanding of forensic justification to (2) the nature and importance and reality of human transformation.He writes: ‘Precisely because human righteousness subserves the revelation of God’s glory, its [i.e., “human righteousness”] external embodiment is essential to its [i.e., God’s glory’s] complete realization.’76 Here is what I think Vos is getting at: if God’s own glory is central to all that He does (and it is!), and if the “external embodiment” of human righteousness (which would include human works, obedience, and faithfulness) subserves the revelation of God’s glory, then the “complete realization” of the revelation of God’s glory requires true and real human works, obedience, and faithfulness. Vos can also write: “Now it is this supreme thirst for the manifestation of the righteousness of God as an essential attribute of His nature, and not a semiconscious revival of Judaistic legalism, that underlies the Pauline doctrine of justification.”77

Richard Gaffin is helpful here as well. For Gaffin, God’s glory is central as well.Richard Gaffin says something at the end of his essay, “Union with Christ,” that was very helpful. In speaking of what is at stake with the reality of our union with Christ: “The personally involved, intimately engaged stake he has in our sanctification, as well as our justification, is nothing less than his own ever-accruing glory in the midst of that brotherhood comprising those, as freely justified, who are also being conformed to his image. That, his all-surprising glory being realized as he is the ‘firstborn among many brothers’, in union with them, that glory, as much as anything, ought to be our constant and controlling preoccupation in all matters that concern the ordo salutis.”78

75 Ibid. 121.76 Vos 1980a: 397.77 Vos 1980a: 397.78 Gaffin, “Union with Christ,” 288.

18

What is intriguing here is perhaps to extend Gaffin’s point a bit. Gaffin is suggesting that God has something “at stake” in our sanctification. By sanctification, God is conforming us to the image of His Son. As beings who are being sanctified, and who are being prepared to enter into the presence of God, God as something “at stake” in our transformation. Might we also say, then, that God is “bound”—by his own glory, and by his own covenant promises—to so work that we are transformed and changed over time? And that this transformation and change would include—but not be limited to—the works, obedience, and faithfulness that develop in us?2. Vos’ Understanding of the “Appropriateness” of Obedience

Vos can also speak of the “necessity” of works and obedience in the Christian life. But he, like others, does not want to state this in some “legalistic” framework. Vos articulates his own view by contrasting it with the legalistic path of the Judaizers. He writes:“It is plain, then, that law-keeping did not figure at that juncture [i.e., the Mosaic covenant] as the meritorious ground of life-inheritance. The latter [i.e., life-inheritance] is based on grace alone, no less emphatically than Paul himself places salvation on that ground. But, while this is so, it might still be objected that law-observance, if not the ground for receiving, is yet made the ground for retention of the privileges inherited. Here it cannot, of course, be denied that a real connection exists. But the Judaizers went wrong in inferring that the connection must be meritorious, that, if Israel keeps the cherished gifts of Jehovah through obedience of His law, this must be so, because in strict justice they had earned them. The connection is of a totally different kind. It belongs not to the legal sphere of merit, but to the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression.”79

Indeed, “law-observation is not the meritorious ground of blessedness.”80

But certainly the Israelites were called to obey the Lord’s commands? For Vos, did the Mosaic administration teach that we get in by grace and stay in by works? Vos’ answer to the question, did Israel retain via works or obedience what Israel had initially received by grace, is ‘yes’ (qualified and properly understood). Vos suggests that Israel did not obtain ‘retention of the privileges inherited’ because of meritorious works. Nonetheless, there is a ‘real connection’ (Vos’ words) between (1) ‘retention of the privileges inherited’ by grace and (2) ‘law-observance’. So, what is the nature of the relationship between (1) retaining of privileges and (2) law-observance? For Vos ‘law-observance’ does not belong to the ‘legal sphere’ (which would include or entail the notion of ‘merit’), but to the ‘symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression.’81

79 Vos 1954: 127, quoted in Frame 2008: 207.80 Ibid., 128.81 Ibid. 127.

19