Human Nature from Calvin to Edwards, by Paul Helm

Reformation Heritage Books, 2018, 282pp, 

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones would often say that the truth of God’s word should be presented to the mind in order to inflame the heart and move the will to action. In speaking like that the preacher was using the language of ‘faculty psychology’. The ‘faculties’ of the soul describe its intertwining functions and powers, such as the mind, the affections and the will. That does not mean the soul is composed of various bits and pieces. Most proponents of faculty psychology believed that the human soul is a simple entity that cannot be divided into discrete parts as can the body.

Early Christian thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo drew upon the views of Plato and Aristotle when formulating their doctrine of human nature. Reformers John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli followed in their wake. The old Greek philosophers knew nothing of original sin or the resurrection of the body, however, so their ideas had to be modified in the light of biblical teaching.

The focus of Helm's study is on the ‘faculty psychology’ of Puritan writers. He cites the views of numerous Puritans on the relationship between body and soul, the faculties of the soul and moral agency. The teaching of familiar figures such as John Owen and John Flavel is discussed, as well as less well known writers like William Pemble. The book demands careful reading, as each author quoted had a slightly different perspective on the matters under consideration. Helm’s discussion of the conscience in Puritan writings is especially illuminating.

John Locke critiqued traditional faculty psychology, preferring to emphasise the actions of the undivided self over and against differentiated powers of mind, heart and will. Helm provides evidence of Locke’s influence on Jonathan Edwards’s work, The Religious Affections. But Locke’s objections did not spell the end of faculty psychology. The insights of our Puritan forebears continue to cast light on human nature as created by God, affected by sin and redeemed by grace. 

Paul Helm blogs at Helm's Deep. 

*Reviewed for the April 2022 edition of  The Banner of Truth Magazine

The Secret Providence of God by John Calvin

The Secret Providence of God,

John Calvin, Edited by Paul Helm,

Crossway Books, 2010, 125pp

Sebastian Castellio was once a friend and supporter of John Calvin. For a time the two men worked together in Geneva. But they drifted apart both in terms of their friendship and also theologically. Castellio especially came to dislike Calvin's teaching on the absolute sovereignty of God. He released an open letter criticising what Calvin had written on the subject. The letter took the form of fourteen articles on predestination supposedly drawn from Calvin's works, together with a point-by-point rebuttal of the Reformer's views. Calvin was stung into action on reading Castellio's manuscript. He entered the fray to defend his teaching on the providence of God. This work offers a fresh translation of Castellio's missive and John Calvin's response. 

Calvin argues his case with vigour and clarity, constantly appealing to the teaching of Scripture in support of his views. Calvin's position was not idiosyncratic. The Reformer saw the issues clearly because he stood on the shoulders of Augustine. He repeatedly cites the views of the Church Father over and against his opponent. Accordingly, Calvin insists on both the absolute sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man for his sin. He makes a distinction between the revealed will of God, which man is bound to obey and his secret will by which God governs even the sinful actions of men (Deuteronomy 29:29). But this does not mean that God is conflicted, as in all things he decrees that which is wise, just and good.  

The Reformer takes no prisoners when it comes to denouncing Castellio's disingenuous calumnies, "Now you see, you dog, what you accomplish by your violent barking (p. 64).  He raises the matter of Castellio's alleged theft of firewood when he lived in Geneva to illustrate that when people sin they do so willingly and are therefore responsible for their actions (p. 112). He concludes by likening Castellio to Shimei who cursed David when he was on the run from Absalom. Like David, Calvin could only bear up under Catellio's onslaught by taking refuge in the secret providence of God. Calvin wrote with such passion partly because he was irked by Castellio's deliberate caricaturing of his views, but his great concern was to vindicate the sovereignty of God as attested in Holy Scripture. 

Readers might wonder what exactly is the relevance of this long-forgotten theological spat to our situation today. Well, the views similar to those somewhat crudely advocated by Castellio have not gone away. He reasoned that if God is absolutely sovereign, with his will governing all things, then he must be responsible for the sinful conduct of men. He summarises Calvin's teaching under Article 4, as saying, All the crimes that have been accomplished by any man are the good and just works of God (p.43). Castellio would have it that God permits sin in deference to man's freedom, but not that he willingly permits sin for his own secret and wise purposes. The calumniator's views anticipate the teaching of Jacob Arminius. The seeds he planted find their fruition in Open Theism, which has been finding inroads in contemporary Evangelical circles. Calvin's robust response to Castellio will put iron into the veins of today's theologically anaemic Evangelicalism. 

Paul Helm on Nature and Grace

Some notes on the second of Paul Helm's talks at the recent Pastors' Forum.

In talk two Helm focused his attention on different aspects of natural theology. He stressed that "the natural" is not neutral in a secular sense. Twentieth century Reformed theologians often had a negative attitude towards natural theology, but that was not necessarily the case among the Reformers.

We considered the image of God and the fall, what is lost and what remains.

1. The image of God was in some sense lost at the fall, but it is renewed in redemption, Colossians 3:9-10. Human nature disordered was by loss of image. This was the typical view of both the Reformers and medievals such as Aquinas.

2. Loss of the image left human nature entire, in a state of "pure nature". This was the later Roman Catholic view, but was opposed by Augustinian Jansenists such as Paschal.

The Westminster Confession speaks of the "light of nature". Natural law is not on a track that is independent of revelation, but by the light of nature all human beings, have a sense of right and wrong. Loss of the image in the fall has to be qualified by Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9. Nevertheless, even if the image is not totally lost in the fall, the image as distorted by sin is restored in Christ.

Reformed attitudes towards the natural

Barth

His Christocentric approach left no room for natural theology. Witness his "Nien!" to Brunner's proposals on natural theology.

Kuyper

After the French revolution Western culture became overtly anti-God. In Kuyper's world and life view  there is an antithesis between Christianity and culture. The idea of "pure nature" is an aberration.

Van Til

Natural theology means autonomy from God and is Arminian.

Calvin

The fall did not erase the knowledge of God, who reveals himself in both general and special revelation. Each human being has a sense of God. But the sensus divinitatis, perverted in false religion, still exists in every human heart. The light of nature is spoilt by sin, but it is not erased.

There is the earthly kingdom of this life and the kingdom of God. In the earthly kingdom, we have civil order and gifts of common grace such as the arts and sciences. The earthly kingdom has to do with temporal matters and the kingdom of God with eternal realities. The Christian lives in the kingdom of this world, subject to God's providential care, but he belongs to the heavenly kingdom. The Christian benefits from the gifts of common grace bestowed by God upon all humanity; music, medicine, maths, logical argumentation etc. In accordance with his negative view of nature, Kuyper set up Christian Universities in Holland and led the Christian Anti-Revolutionary Party. But there is no need for "Christian maths". For believer and unbeliever alike, 1 + 1 = 2. There can be no such thing as "the Christian view of politics", as politics belongs to the earthly kingdom, which is governed by the light of nature. 

Amongst other things, a retrieval of Calvin's theology of nature will help to prevent believers ghettoising themselves by, if possible, solely using  educational services, enjoying arts and studying sciences that are explicitly Christian in orientation. While only the special grace of God can save us and fit us for the heavenly kingdom, we have cause to be grateful for the rich gifts of common grace and the light of nature, which still shines in the heart of every human being.

Paul Helm on Athens and Jerusalem Revisited

Last Thursday I headed off to the Land of my Fathers for a Pastors' Forum meeting. The speaker was my good friend Paul Helm. The key theme that spanned all three of his talks was the relationship between nature and grace. Here are some notes on what he had to say.

Talk 1 - Athens and Jerusalem Revisited

A whistle stop tour of ancient Carthage, Jerusalem, Athens and Hippo.

Carthage

Carthage, 200AD. Tertullian posed the question, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" He opposed a hybrid of Christianity and philosophy. Does this make him an irrationalist, fideist? No. He was not against reason, saying that Christianity is  believable because it is rationally impossible. He warned against the hybridisation of the faith, not the use of reason per se. He recognised that at some points there was concord between faith and philosophy. 

Jerusalem

Is is possible to translate the faith into other thought forms?

To answer this question, Helm took us to the heart of our faith, the cross of Jesus. Pilate had an inscription placed on the cross, reading, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews", in Latin, Greek and Aramaic, John 19:19. The basic idea of Jesus  being the King of the Jews was accurately conveyed in all three languages.

 Language is at heart of the Christian faith, as is translation. Jesus' words as recorded in the Gospels were originally spoken in Aramaic, not Greek, but the New Testament gives us an accurate record of his speech. The gospel message, "This is the King of the Jews" is translatable because Christianity is an international faith. Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12. Great Commission, Matthew 28. Pentecost, Acts 2.

Translation is problematic - John 19:19. Some meaning is lost as the words are translated into Latin, Greek and Aramaic. But NT Greek is adequate to give us access to Jesus' words, even though in translation nuances of meaning are lost and gained. Speakers of Latin, Greek and Aramaic may have had different ideas of kingship, but the basic the idea that Jesus was crucified as the King of the Jews was conveyed  to all three language groups by Pilate's inscription. Whatever fine nuances may have been lost in translation did not matter.

Cognitive meaning is conveyed in translation. Content test - "King of the Jews" means the same when translated into French and English. In translation the words are true in either language, because Jesus is the King of the Jews. The truth of gospel is true in other languages.

Postmodern obsession with context is a gross exaggeration. People of all all languages will cry, "Worthy is the Lamb". Is cultural context important? Yes and no. Cultural sensitivity is needed, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, yet as in John 19:19, the truth is essentially the same in any language and culture.

What of a culture that has no word for king? Translate, "Jesus is the CEO of the Jews"? Retain "king" in translation and  explain what it means. Or appropriate a word that approximates "king" and extend its meaning. But this does not mean that Helm favours a "dynamic equivalence" approach to Bible translation. It is one thing for Christian apologists to attempt to translate the faith into the language and thought forms of a culture, but in Bible translation, the aim should always be an accurate as possible rendering of the original. This applies even if there is no equivalent concept in the language into which Scripture is being translated. If a people have no idea of snow (Isaiah 1:18), then it is the task of Christian teachers to explain that it is very white, cold stuff that falls from the sky.

From Jerusalem to Athens:  Acts 17

A case of "natural theology". At Mars Hill Paul quoted pagan authors. In the pagan poets, what is true of God was misapplied to false gods. Since we are God's offspring, how can God be an idol, Acts 17:28-29? Paul's address involves a conceptual translation of Genesis 1, using the language of pagan poets. "Let us make man in our image", Genesis 1:26. "We are also his offspring", Acts 17:28. But the gospel is not translated, as Jesus' resurrection (Acts 17:31) had no counterpart in pagan thought.

Hippo

In Book 7 of his Confessions,  Augustine describes how he was delivered from Manichaeism by reading "certain books of the Platonists". By their writings he was  freed from seeing God in physical, embodied terms. The Platonists, by which he  probably meant Plotinus, taught him that God is an immortal Spirit. Augustine begain to understand the creature-creator distinction more clearly and now saw sin a defect, rather than in the dualist terms of the Manichees. This did not make him a Christian, but he became convinced of the existence of the true God through the Platonists. Plotinus even helped Augustine in his reading of Scripture. The philosopher wrote of  the One producing a second hypostasis as the sun produces light. Augustine saw John 1:1-5 as the biblical counterpart of Plotinus' writings. In fact the philosopher was trying to defend Platonism against Christianity, but Augustine was willing to "spoil the Egyptians" by using the insights on the philosophers in the service of faith seeking understanding. However, the theologian was not carried away by all this. He knew of both convergences and divergences between Christianity and philosophy. Plotinus knew nothing of the Son being of the same essence of the Father who had begotten him, Word becoming flesh, or of Jesus saving sinners by his death on the cross. God has hidden these things from the wise and the prudent (Matthew 11:25), who, professing themselves to be wise, became fools, (Romans 1:22).  I suppose that in a similar way, a modern day sceptic might be delivered from his atheism by reading a scientific critique of Darwinism. He might then come to believe in the existence of a Creator, but he would still need to hear and respond in faith to the gospel in order to become a Christian believer.

Conclusion

The gospel can be communicated in different cultural contexts. It is permissible to translate faith into a culture when there are cognitive equivalents, but no further. Liberal theology eliminates the  historical singularities of the faith; the incarnation, atoning death and bodily resurrection of Christ, in an attempt to make Christianity culturally acceptable. This is not an option if we wish to be faithful to the biblical gospel. However, "natural theology" may provide common ground between the Christian and the non-believer and so give us a point of entry for the gospel.

N. T. Wright at Helm's Deep

Paul Helm has concluded his four-part series on N. T. Wright and justification by faith alone. Check it out for an acute theological analysis of the differences between Wright's 'new perspective' stance and the classic Reformed position on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

1. Wright in General
2. Why Covenant Faithfulness is not Divine Righteousness (and cannot be).
3. Wright and Righteousness
4. Wright and the Reformation

"On the Reformed view, Christ’s imputed righteousness is ‘alien’, external, the righteousness of another, and even when imputed, it will always remain alien. God justifies the ungodly as ungodly. The widely-used illustration, that Christ’s righteousness is credited to my account, is misleading. (If I’m credited, mustn’t Christ be debited?) To repeat, in the imputation of righteousness, nothing moves. Imputation is not an electronic moral transfer. Righteousness is not transmitted, transfused, or relocated in any way. (Any more than if I receive free insurance cover I receive a transfusion of some mysterious substance called ‘insurance’.) The believer’s imputed righteousness remains inalienably Christ’s perfect righteousness. What is true is that by an act of the unspeakable mercy of God the believer is shielded by, or seen through, or covered by, the righteousness of another." (From Wright and the Reformation ).

Paul Helm on dynamic equivalence (or not)

Over at Helm's Deep, Paul Helm has been ruminating on the question, Dynamic Equivalence - Is there such a thing? He makes some excellent points on the impossibility of dynamic equivalence in and argues in favour of an essentially literal approach to Bible translation such as is found in the KJV, NKJV and ESV. The prof also raises the matter of whether it is an "unquestionably good strategy for new translations to be parachuted into cultures that are totally lacking in churches or ministers of the gospel trained to ‘give the sense’ to the Bible." He suggests that important biblical terms like as 'righteousness' and 'atonement' should be retained even when a receiving language lacks the equivalent words. In that case the meaning may given in marginal notes.

The English language is blessed with a well established theological vocabulary. But some contemporary Bible translations avoid using words that may not be immediately intelligible to the modern day reader. Famously the NIV substitutes 'sacrifice of atonement' for 'propitiation' - eg. Romans 3:25, and something very important is lost in translation. The Bible is to be read in the context of church life. The task of preachers is to explain and apply the teaching of Scripture in culturally relevant language.

When it comes to personal Bible reading, Helm makes a good case for the use of Study Bibles that can help us get to grips with the meaning of the biblical text. A decent Study Bible can almost do for the reader what Philip the evangelist did forthe Ethiopian Eunuch, Acts 8:30-35. I've been using the ESV Study Bible, for my own personal Bible reading for some months. While the notes are too brief for sermon prep, they give the basic sense of the passage in a clear and concise way. Anyway, have a look at Paul Helm's thought provoking article on this subject.

A very rough guide to Calvin's theology: Glory!

If evangelicalism is to have a future as a movement that is faithful to the gospel then we need a good dose of Calvin’s theology. We must hold that the triune God of the Gospel is still mighty to save sinners by his sovereign grace.

I have but given you a very rough, sketchy and incomplete guide to Calvin’s life and thought. A little series of blog posts can but suggest something of Calvin's theology in all its grandeur and breadth. Contrary to popular misconception, there is certainly more to him than predestination. Calvin gives us invaluable insight into the nature of biblical revelation, the Trinity, and Christ in his offices of Prophet, Priest and King. His teaching on salvation through union with Christ, and the gift of 'double grace' in him, is especially helpful. What he has to say on living the Christian life is full of practical wisdom.

What I like above all else about Calvin and his theological vision is his utter God-centeredness. His focus is not on man and his abilities, but on God and his sin-conquering, life transforming grace. His theology is careful to give God all the glory for our salvation.

Glory to the Father for choosing to save a sinners like us! Glory to the Son for dying to redeem a save sinners like us! Glory to the Spirit for savingly uniting a sinners like us to Christ!

Calvin calls us to live for the glory of God:

Let this, then, be the first step, to abandon ourselves and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God. (Institutes III: 7: 1)

We are no to seek our own, but the Lord’s will, and act with a view to promote his glory. (Institutes III: 7: 2)

May we say together with John Calvin in the words of his family motto:

“I offer my heart to you, Lord, promptly and sincerely”

More stuff
Calvin: still hot at 500 an article in the Times on the "new Calvinists". Mostly on the Young, Restless, Reformed American scene. Why no attention to Calvinism in the UK? H/T David Ceri.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed, by Paul Helm
John Calvin's Ideas, by Paul Helm

Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed by Paul Helm

Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed, by Paul Helm, T&T Clark, 2008, 175pp.

Are you perplexed by Calvin, dear reader? Do you find yourself wondering what all the fuss is about, yet you can't be bothered to read the mighty Institutes? Wasn't he just a one-note theologian who just kept harping on about predestination? If I am describing you here, then you need this book. Paul Helm, one of our foremost interpreters of Calvin has provided us with an accessible introduction to the theology of the great Protestant Reformer.

Beginning with 'Orientation', Helm gives us a brief sketch of Calvin's life and work. He insists that the Reformer must be understood in his own historical context. We should not anachronistically read developments in later Calvinistic theology back into the mind of Calvin. Neither should me make him a participant in controversies that only erupted after his death. His position on 'limited atonement' is a case in point. Also, we should not commit the error of thinking that Calvin was a 'pure biblical theologian', who rejected all that scholastic theology had to offer. While he usually avoided the speculative excesses of scholasticism, Calvin wasn't above using the insights of Aquinas and others when it suited his purpose.

In his exposition of of some of the main themes in Calvin's theology, Helm follows the contours of the Reformer's magmum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. He begins by reflecting on Calvin's great statement in the Institutes that 'Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.' For Calvin the whole point in doing theology (although he did not like that term) was to gain wisdom that we might live for the glory of God. God has revealed himself to us in creation. Each human being has a sense that God exists, the sensus divinitas. In our sin we distort and suppress the witness of the sensus, but a sense of God cannot be totally eradicated from the human heart. We know enough to be held accountable for our unbelief and idolatry. If we are to be saved from sin, we need God to reveal himself to us as our redeemer. He has done this in Holy Scripture, where God accommodates himself to our capacities that we might know him as our Saviour in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit authenticates the Scriptures to the believer so that the Bible is received as the very Word of God.

God has revealed himself to us in Scripture as One God in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Helm gives consideration to Calvin's teaching on God in Trinity. The Reformer would have preferred a minimalist doctrine of the Trinity, saying, 'I wish, indeed that such names [theological terms like person, substance, etc] were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but each has his peculiar subsistence.' But in order to clarify and safeguard the truth in the face of heresy, Calvin was willing to employ the traditional formula that in the one divine essence there are three persons. Contrary to more speculative teaching on the begotteness of the Son, the Reformer stressed that the Son did not receive his deity from the Father. He is autotheos, God in his own right alongside the Father and the Spirit. In the Godhead there is an order of persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but no gradation of deity.

Next Helm moves with Calvin to focus attention on the Son. His conception of the person of Christ was in full accord with Chalcedonian orthodoxy. He stressed that when the Son became man, he did not stop being God. In his humanity, the Son was finite, subject to the restrictions of time and place. While in his deity the Son was infinite, eternal and omnipresent, upholding all things by the word of his power. The communion of attributes in the Son did not entail the transfer of divine properties to the humanity of Jesus. When Scripture speaks of the 'Lord of glory' being crucified (1 Corinthians 2:8), or the church being purchased by God's blood (Acts 20:28), we are not to understand that divine nature suffered death, but that Jesus, a divine Person suffered in his humanity.

Calvin considered the work of Christ in terms of his biblically assigned offices of prophet, priest and king. Helm follows that pattern, drawing attention first of all to Christ's priestly, sacrificial death. Did Calvin follow Anselm in teaching that the atonement was necessary to satisfy God's offended honour? Or was his thinking more in line with Augustine, who argued that the cross was the best way of salvation, although God might have delivered us from sin apart from Calvary? The Reformer seems to oscillate between these two views. In some places he stresses the necessity of the atonement, in others he suggests that God saved us through the death of his Son to reveal the depth of his grace and love. Helm understands Calvin to be saying that God could have saved us apart from the cross had he so wished, but in order to provide the fullness of salvation that we now experience in Christ, Jesus had to die. He argues that such a construction provides a helpful response to the Socinians, who, after Calvin's day, sneered at the idea that Christ had to die for God to forgive. But I'm not so sure. I prefer John Murray's proposal, which he called with his customary precision, the 'consequent absolute necessity' of the atonement. (See Chapter 1 of Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Banner of Truth Trust, The Necessity of the Atonement). Murray seeks to demonstrate from Scripture that consequent to God's gracious and loving decision to save sinners from wrath and judgement, it was necessary for Christ to die to secure our salvation. This view takes account both of God's amazing love in providing a Redeemer and his absolute justice in punishing sin in the death of Christ.

One of Calvin's key theological achievements was recognising the importance of the New Testament's teaching on union with Christ. He dismissed the medieval teaching on the value of human merit in salvation, insisting that God owes sinners nothing. Salvation comes through God graciously uniting us to Christ by his Spirit. In Christ believers receive the 'double benefit' of justification and sanctification. Justification and sanctification are conceptually distinct. Justification is God's declaration that a sinner is righteous in his sight, on the basis of Christ's finished work, received by faith alone. Works don't come into it. Sanctification an act of spiritual transformation, which leads to a holy life. By virtue of the believer's union with Christ, we are both justified and sanctified. It is impossible to have the one aspect of salvation apart from another. This pulls the rug from under the Roman Catholic charge that the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone was antinomian.

But not all are brought to saving faith in Christ. Why is it that some believe and others do not? This brings Helm to discuss Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Some think that predestination was the governing axiom of Calvin's theology, but this is not the case. His doctrine was based on his understanding of Scripture, especially Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. God has chosen to save some sinful human beings, simply on the basis of his free grace and love. He has chosen not to save others. They will suffer his just wrath for their sin. How can we know if we are among the elect? We cannot peer into God's hidden decree of salvation. Calvin advises us to look to Christ, whom he describes as 'the mirror of our election'. If we are united to him by faith, then we can be assured that we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Calvin's Christ-centered doctrine of election helps to save the Christian from despairing of ever knowing if his name is written in the Book of Life.

Calvin has a reputation (perhaps not altogether undeserved) of being a little tetchy and austere. Helm helps to redress the balance with his exploration of the Reformers view of the Christian life. Calvin believed that God, in his creation and providence has showered mankind with many gifts. We are to receive these gifts with joy as tokens of God's goodness. Calvin was not ascetic. He ridiculed those who had scruples over eating good food and wearing comfortable and attractive clothing. He emphasised that all Christians are called to serve the Lord, whatever their line of work. But while this life is not to be despised, we are driven by the sufferings of this world to long for the joys of everlasting glory in our heavenly home.

John Calvin was profoundly interested in church life. He worked tirelessly to reform the church in Geneva, seeking to establish the work on a more biblical pattern. He was realistic enough not to expect perfection in the visible church, which he distinguished from the invisible church, comprising of all God's elect. But is Helm right to speculate that Calvin left open the possibility that there might be 'anonymous Christians', those who have made no profession of faith, but are still to be regarded as 'Christian' in some way? It is difficult to know what Calvin might have thought about this. But judging from the way he railed against the Nicodemites of his day, who wanted to keep their Christian identity hidden, I think the possibility of Calvin countenancing Karl Rahner-style 'anonymous Christians' has been prised open by Helm rather than left open by the Reformer. It is one thing to say that a person may be elect without being a member of the visible church. No argument there. For a variety of reasons, such anomalies do occur. It is another thing to say that a person may be a Christian without hearing and accepting the gospel of Christ. Is Helm falling into the trap against which he warned against earlier in the book, of making Calvin a conversation partner in modern debates over 'anonymous Christians', about which he knew nothing?

Under the heading of the Church, Helm also gives attention to Calvin's thinking on Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Reformer disliked Luther's teaching on the latter sacrament. Luther argued that in being glorified, the humanity of Christ took on the property of omnipresence. Because of that his flesh can be with and under the bread and wine at the Supper. For Calvin, this view displayed a terrible misunderstanding of the communion of attributes in the Person of Christ, and compromised the reality of our Lord's continued incarnate life. But he also disagreed with Zwingli's doctrine, which made the Lord's Supper little more than a trip down memory lane. Calvin proposed that Christ is present at the Table by his Spirit. The Spirit compresses the distance between the believer and the flesh of the ascended Christ as we feed upon him by faith at the Lord's Supper.

What of the relation between Church and Society? Calvin believed that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to uphold both tables of the law. It was this idea got Calvin into trouble in the Servetus case. Servetus was an anti-trinitarian heretic, who was arrested on visiting Geneva. He was sentenced to be burnt at the stake by the Genevan authorities. Calvin asked that he should executed more humanely. But he still consented to the judicial killing of Servetus for the 'crime' of heresy. Helm certainly does not exonerate Calvin for his role in this affair. Calvin was a man of his time. But his knowledge of the gospel of Jesus should have taught him better. This sorry episode reminds us that even our great heroes have their blind spots. The powers of the state should not be used to suppress heresy. The church's weapon against false teaching is the sword of the Spirit. We must be willing to suffer and die for the truth, but never kill for it.

On a lighter note, Helm wonders if Calvin expected that cultural products, resulting from common grace might carry through into the new creation. Will we hear the strains of Bach, Brahms and even Pink Floyd in the world to come? Coldplay and Radiohead maybe, but surely not Pink Floyd. Pretentiously long and complex prog-rock guitar solos in the glory? Please no! Unless that is, Carl Trueman and his ilk are going to be allowed a sound-proofed space of their own in some remote corner of the new earth. In fairness, Helm wonders if his suggestion might be too fanciful to be authentically Calvinian. But there may be something in what he says. Consider Revelation 21:24-26 and see Cornelis P. Venema's comments in The Promise of the Future, Banner of Truth Trust, 2000, p. 480-482.

In the final chapter, Helm discusses 'Calvin and Calvinism', tracing some of the continuities and discontinuities between Calvin and the movement he spawned. The radical discontinuity theories of R. T. Kendall and the likes are rejected. But it is interesting to note that staples of later Reformed orthodoxy such as the 'covenant of redemption' and the 'federal headship' of Adam are not to be found in Calvin himself.

Paul Helm has provided us with a first class introduction to Calvin's thought in all its grandeur and breadth. There is certainly more to Calvin than predestination. He gives us invaluable insight into the nature of biblical revelation, the Trinity, and Christ in his offices of Prophet, Priest and King. His teaching on salvation through union with Christ, and the gift of 'double grace' in him, is especially helpful. What he has to say on living the Christian life is full of practical wisdom. This guide will help the perplexed. I hope that it will also stimulate the reader to get better acquainted with the theological legacy of John Calvin, great Genevan Reformer.

*Thanks to Paul Helm for the free copy!

Paul Helm on the impassibility of God

We had Paul Helm, who blogs at Helm's Deep come to speak to our Ministers' Fraternal which meets at the Old Baptist Chapel, Bradford on Avon yesterday. He was invited to address the subject, "Does God suffer?"

'Without body, parts or passions' - The Impassibility of God

"But to God nothing of this sort occurs; for He is neither deceived, nor does He deceitfully promise anything, nor, as James says, is there with Him any “shadow of turning.” (James 1:7.) We now understand to what this dissimilitude between God and men refers, namely, that we should not travesty God according to our own notions, but, in our consideration of His nature, should remember that he is liable to no changes, since He is far above all heavens." (John Calvin commenting on Numbers 23:19 - see here).

1. Approaching Divine Impassibility

We need to be careful to define terms. We are talking about impassibility - that God is without passions, just as he is without a body. This is not about impassability, which means that a road has become impassable due to an avalanche or some other obstruction. God is not a blockage. Impassibility does not mean impassivity - that God is Stoically disengaged or not concerned about the world. God is not psychotic.

When we talk of divine impassibility, we are using negative language. We are saying what God is not. Theologians often have to resort to negative language when describing the being of God. He is impassible, infinite, incomprehensible, immutable and so on. This reminds us that God's being is a great mystery. From our stance as finite human beings it is easier for us to say what he is not than what he is. We should exercise reserve and modesty before the great mystery of God's being. He is above and beyond us in every way.

God's impassibility is a quality of his aseity or divine fullness. Unlike us, God is not dependent upon anything outside himself for emotional fulfilment or satisfaction. I've been dipping into David Bentley Hart's The Beauty of the Infinite. He discusses the divine impassibility or apatheia against the background of the intertrinitarian fellowship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead.

"I can at least offer a definition of divine apatheia as trinitarian love: God's impassibility is the utter fullness of an infinite dynamism, the absolutely complete and replete generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit from the Father, the infinite "drama" of God's joyous act of self-outpouring - which is his being as God. Within the plenitude of this motion, no contrary motion can fabricate an interval of negation, because it is the infinite possibility of every creaturely motion or act; no pathos is possible for God because pathos is, by definition, a finite instance of change visited upon a passive subject, actualising some potential, whereas God's love is pure positivity and pure activity." (The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, David Bentley Hart, Eerdmans, 2003, p. 167).

Impassibility then, is not a defect in God. He is not emotionally stunted or remote. Rather he is perfectly fulfilled and satisfied in the perichoretic fellowship of the Trinity. It is out of this self-sufficient aseity that God relates to us as his creatures. He is not dependent upon us for love or emotional completion, but he generously condescends to bring us into the rich blessing of loving fellowship with himself. That is why he made us in his image. That is why he acted in Christ to reconcile us to himself after the fall.

Impassibility reminds us of the Creator/creature distinction. "God is not a man that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29). He is not like us, a creature of the moment with moods and fleeting passions. He is the transcendent Creator and we are his finite creatures.

2. Immutability - the unalterability of God

Helm drew attention to some of the many Bible texts that show that God does not change, Hebrews 6:17-18, James 1:17, Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, Exodus 3:14-16. If God is immutable, then he is impassible, since passibility implies change. God's emotions are steady and constant. He does not waver in his love for his people or in his determination to punish the wicked for their sins. The divine immutability does not imply a denial of God's ability to relate to the world. He is not immobile. God, though immutable, created and sustains creatures who change, and engages with them. Precisely because God does not change and is not subject to fluctuating passions, his engagedness with the world is constant. His mercies are new every morning. His lovingkindness is over all his works. Great is his faithfulness.

3. The Nature of Divine Impassibility

Passions are not necessarily negative or turbulent like bad moods or loosing one's temper. When we are overcome with such passions we may say and do things that we later regret. But it is possible to speak more positively of passion. A judge may have a passion for justice, which makes him all the more careful and scrupulous when trying a case. A scientist's passion for physics will drive him to make new discoveries and add to the sum of human knowledge. When we say that God is impassible, we are not suggesting that he is unfeeling or uncaring. He looks on a suffering world with pity and has mercy on sin-broken humanity. But God is not the subject of fitful moods. He is not spasmodic, irritable or liable to irrational outbursts of temper. But we can perhaps speak of God being impassioned, like the judge or scientist in the examples just given. In his single-minded, impassioned justice, God will hold the world to account and right all wrongs. In his impassioned love, he reaches out to the lost and secures their salvation through the death of his Son.

4. Objections

Scripture sometimes seems to speak of God as if he were passible. His anger flares up and then subsides. He is described as "repenting". But Scripture is God's accommodated self-revelation. Here he reveals what he is to us, rather than what he is in himself. The Bible uses anthropomorphic language of God, speaking his his hands, eyes and back parts. As God is a pure spirit, and is without parts, he has none of those things. But anthropomorphisms communicate the truth in a very vivid way. In a similar way, we have "anthopopathisms", where God's emotions are depicted in terms of human feelings. He does not really repent. But such language is used to help us understand how the eternal God relates to his time-bound creatures. In his wrath, God threatens us with judgement, we repent, his anger turns away and we are forgiven. The Book of Jonah is a case in point. But that sinners are brought to repentance unto salvation is God's gracious, eternal and unalterable purpose.

It is in the incarnation of Jesus and his suffering on the cross that we see God's impassioned love revealed in the assumed human nature of the Son. What the Christ felt in his human nature was the expression of his divine person. His tears at Lazarus' grave and his anger at the money changers in the temple expressed God's compassion for the lost and his anger against sin. The heart of the impassioned and impassible God is refracted in the humanity of Jesus Christ. The incarnation of the impassible One shows us that divine impassibility does not mean that God is emotionless or disengaged. Out of love for his people, the Son of God suffered and died for us in his human nature. In him we have a sympathetic high priest, who feels as we feel (apart from sinful passions!) -Hebrews 4:14-15.

Theology is not meant to explain the mystery of God's being like a detective may solve a crime. In the words of Augustine, the best we can do is erect a hedge around the mystery to protect us from misunderstanding the God whose ways are past finding out. The church's teaching on divine impassibility, when properly understood, is part of that protective hedge and we tear it down at our peril.

5. Uses

God is entirely faithful and reliable. We can trust his promises, certain in the knowledge that he will not renege on them in a fit of passion.

Impassibility reminds us of the divine transcendence and incomprehensibility. We can know him truly but never fully comprehend his being.

Without the safeguard of impassibility, we may be in danger of creating a passible God in our own image. He is not a man that he should repent! "I am the Lord, I do not change: Therefore you are not condemned, O sons of Jacob." (Malachi 3:6).

A time of discussion followed where many interesting points were raised. Can we divide up the life of Christ as we find it in the Gospels into the divine bits and human bits? No - that's Nestorianism. What do we make of the fact that the Son did not know the time of his second coming? I suggested (following John Murray) that in the Person of Christ we have one self-consciousness, but two levels of consciousness, divine and human. But Paul Helm thought that such a construction was attempting to explain away the mystery. I'm not so sure. I think it helps to preserve the fact that in Christ we have a divine person with a human nature. We touched on Donald Macleod's views on impassibility, which Helm finds unobjectionable. But he was unhappy with Jurgren Moltmann's emphasis on the suffering of God [the Father] at Calvary. Open theism, handling "God repented" passages in the Bible and some other issues were thrown into the pot to make for a very stimulating session.

What Helm had to say certainly clarified my thinking on a difficult and often controversial aspect of the doctrine of God. I especially liked his emphasis on impassibility as a consequence of divine aseity and his proposal on God being impassible and yet impassioned. (See also his B. B. Warfield On Divine Passion, Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 95-104). Thanks also to Paul for giving me a free copy of the newly published Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, Crossway, 2008. He contributes a chapter, No Easy Task: John Franke and the Character of Theology.

Creation the Bible and Science Conference: Day Two

Speakers from left: Robert Letham, Paul Helm, Philip Eveson,
Jason Ramplet, Stephen Lloyd & Stuart Burgess. (John Currid absent).

The New Testament and Creation
Dr. Stephen Lloyd

The quietly spoken, yet persuasive Dr. Lloyd began his paper by comparing the story of the Bible, namely creation, fall, redemption and restoration with the story of Darwinism, which is the evolution of life from amoeba to man. Lloyd, who holds a PhD in materials science, wished to address the issue of whether these two grand metanarratives are compatible. He suggested that controversy over the interpretation of Genesis 1 is really a distraction. What matters is the whole Bible's doctrine of creation. The acceptance of Darwinian evolution has huge implications for Christian theology.

1. Agony and death in the story-line of the Bible.

Romans 8:18-22 tells us that the non-human creation was subjected to futility and entropy as a result of the fall of man. With the fall of man, disease, corruption and death entered the world. In the Bible, death is not a biological necessity, it is the punishment for sin. Some who wish to reconcile the Christian faith with Darwinism argue the fall did not bring physical death, as death is a natural part of biological life. For them, man may have died spiritually when he sinned, but this had no effect upon the physical world beyond man's "bad stewardship". Since fall man has failed to properly fulfil the "cultural mandate". But many important Scriptures stand against the "bad stewardship" reading. Romans 5:12 & 14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 tell us that physical death came into the world because of sin. Jesus' death was physical as well as spiritual. Arguing from solution to plight, we can see that Christ's death dealt with both the spiritual and physical aspects of death. Death is "the last enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26), which will be destroyed when Jesus returns. The Bible's story becomes incoherent if death is simply "natural", as Darwinian evolution demands.

Lloyd did not develop the point, but he said that animal suffering and death were also due to the fall, rather than being natural phenomenon. God declared the pre-fall creation "very good". In the evolutionary story, things like death, disease, and earthquakes are just the way things are. But it is hard to see how God could regard such a disordered world as "good". In reality, such things are part and parcel of his curse upon a fallen world. Salvation has to do with the restoration of the physical as well as the spiritual realm. Christ healed the sick as an anticipation of the renewal of creation. On the cross he wore a crown of thorns, signifying that in him, God's curse upon creation will be removed. Christ's resurrection - a physical event was the first installment of the renewal of creation, Romans 8:23, Revelation 21:4.

The Bible's story of creation, fall, redemption and restoration cannot be reconciled with Darwinism.

2. The flood

The flood of Genesis 6 to 9 was an act of judgement that "de-created" the world because of man's sin. The subsidence of the flood waters was an act of re-creation that points forward to the new creation, 2 Peter 3:3-10. Darwinism cannot accommodate a global flood. But a global flood is a major element in the Bible's story. Noah was a kind of new Adam, Genesis 9:1. The global claims of the gospel arise from God's global promise after the flood, Genesis 8:22. After the flood, life was more suited for sinful man with human age span drastically limited. The flood inaugurated an era of grace, 2 Peter 3:9. Prior to the flood, there were only eight righteous persons on earth - Noah and his family. After the flood multitudes of people have been saved.

3. Adam and the Bible's story

Key biblical passages insist that Adam was an historical figure and that he was the head of the human race - Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. According to the Bible, Adam was specially created in the image of God, Genesis 1:26. Darwinism contradicts this by insisting that human life evolved around 100,000 years ago from pre-human hominids. But if a some point, human beings evolved from Neanderthals then Adam cannot have been the biological ancestor of all mankind. He was just one of the lucky ones who evolved from a pre-human to human state. How, then can Adam have been the representative head of all human beings, so that his sin meant sin and death for humanity? Darwinism makes a mockery of the Bible's account of the federal relationship between Adam and the human race.

Lloyd showed convincingly that the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is a huge theological liability for those who wish to hold to the integrity of the Bible's story.

Design Arguments - Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks?
Prof. Paul Helm

In a well-argued, robust and sometimes humorous address, Paul Helm distinguished between a theology of nature, that takes into account the witness of Scripture and natural theology that seeks to argue from nature up to God. He criticised William Paley's design arguments for failing to take into account things like disease and suffering in nature. God does reveal himself in creation, Romans 1:20, Acts 14:15-18, 17:22-31. But we have to be careful in using intelligent design arguments to refute the theory of evolution by natural selection. Helm's emphasis on the "weirdness" of creation ex nihilo gave pause for thought. Creation as described in Genesis 1 is a singularity. God is now resting from his unique work of creation. In his providential dealings with the world, he respects the integrity of secondary causes. Genesis 1 is an historical account of origins. But we cannot reconstruct what happened back then from scientific principles. Creation ex nihilo is the ultimate singularity where the laws of science as we currently understand them break down.

In summing up, Helm argued that we need to be flexible and gracious in our apologetic approach, as we seek to win a hearing for the gospel. In his address, the Prof offered some important correctives to some evangelical approaches to apologetics. His proposals are well worth pondering. You can read this excellent paper on his blog, here.

Authority: the Bible and Science
Dr. Jason Ramplet

As Ramplet, Research Associate at The Faraday Institute pointed out, in life we are constantly pondering the demands of different authorities. Authorities from the rules of the road to cultural conventions call for our obedience. Both the Bible and science have some authority. God the creator us also the one who made the world for us to investigate and subdue. His truth is one.

1. The authority of the Bible

Some would seek to use science to undermine the authority of the Bible. Others compartmentalise Scripture and science saying, "Science tells us how the heavens go, the Bible tells us how to go to heaven." But Genesis 1 has something to say on how the heavens go, as God made the stars. It was God's authoritative speech acts that called the world into being and that summoned Adam from the dirt.

2. The authority of science

The Bible is authoritative but its scope is not exhaustive. We cannot look to Scripture to tell us how to make a cake or manufacture a clock. Extrabiblical knowledge is important. The cultural mandate of Genesis 1 demands that we "subdue the earth" and that involves some scientific activity. The authority of science arises from four principles:

1) The repeatability of experiments.

2) Experimental data is superior to theoretical speculation.
Theories must answer to the world. Darwin was an experimental scientists before he was a theoriser. Multiverse theory is sheer speculation.

3) Science is a corporate endeavour.
Research is a social activity. Scientific communities peer review new proposals. At this point Ramplet suggested, "the devil is a blogger". I 'm not sure what exactly he meant by that. Does he have any peer-reviewed experimental data to prove his case, I wonder?

4) Nature is set against us.
It is by the sweat of our brow that nature reveals its secrets. We also have to take into consideration the epistemological effects of the fall. Unbelieving scientists have to assume God even to deny him.

3. The supreme authority

Under this heading, Ramplet argued that we must try to keep the scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution in tension with the biblical doctrine of creation. Both science and theology have their own integrity. We know nothing as God knows it. We are his vice-regents with finite secondary knowledge. We must accent the value of science and theology.

This last point was most controversial when it came to discussion. Some scientists in the congregation cast doubt on the so-called "Darwinian consensus", suggesting that it was a forced consensus that subjected dissenters to bullying and intimidation. [See here for Paul Helm's thoughts on Micheal Reiss' dismissal from the Royal Society for suggesting that creationism be taught in science lessons]. Others expressed concern that Ramplet had overly compartmentalised the Bible and science. One pastor asked how the speaker would advise a teenage girl who said that the teaching on evolution in school was different from what she had been taught about creation in church. Ramplet seemed to argued that biblical creation and Darwinian evolution were both valid and should be held in tension. I think that in accepting theistic evolution, Ramplet has allowed the authority of science to trump the authority of Scripture. He has failed to take on board the incompatibility of macroevolutionary theory with the Bible's basic story line, as demonstrated so ably by Stephen Lloyd. It was good to have an opportunity to discuss Ramplet's proposals. But his equivocation on this vital point made for a less than rousing end to an otherwise exceptionally helpful conference.

The conference was held under the auspices of the John Owen Centre. CD's of each address and a nifty MP3 CD containing all the addresses can be ordered here.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Paul Helm

This is the first in a new series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today we have...

Paul Helm

GD: Hello Paul Helm, and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

PH: Thanks for inviting me to answer a few questions, Guy. I greatly enjoy Exiled Preacher, and your help with my own site has been invaluable. As you know!

I taught for many years at the University of Liverpool, then moved to King’s College, London in 1993, resigning in 2000, and I am now ‘freelance’. I am a compulsive writer, fairly bad-tempered, and privacy matters to me, which is why this answer is short!

GD: Your blog is called Helm's Deep. What kind of thing might readers find there?

PH: You called it that, remember? [Oh yes, you have me to blame for that. I couldn't resist punning your name with the scene of a great battle in Lord of the Rings (GD).] It’s chiefly a discussion of issues in which theology and philosophy intersect. Each month I try to post the draft of a paper that is ‘in press’, and an ‘Analysis’ in which I discuss an issue (in 2000 words or so) where philosophical ideas may illuminate or clarify theological positions. This month, for example, I have a concluding Analysis on making choices between alternatives when the evidence for each alternative balances, or is unknown, and the choice must be made. At the far end of ‘guidance’, you might say. Along with this there’s the concluding half of a longer paper on one of my favourite themes, God and time. Shortly I’ll have Analyses on the will of God, and papers on the problem of evil, Edwards on the Trinity, and J.I. Packer’s ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, to mark its 50th anniversary.

GD: Do you think that blogging has a useful part to play in the theological process?

PH: No more than the printing press does. In my case more people read the sort of thing I write than would otherwise be the case. But most religious blogs I come across are dire.

GD: Are you a theological philosopher or a philosophical theologian?

PH: The first, I suppose, since philosophy is what I am trained in.

GD: Tertullian said, of philosophy, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" How would you answer that question?

PH: I don’t think Tertullian was quite correct if his words are taken to advocate a principled avoidance of philosophical concepts and arguments. When in Athens Paul did as the Athenians did, and quoted Aratus and Epimenides with approval, and of course he has extended arguments, as in I Corinthians 15. This has to be weighed, however, against what he wrote to the I Corinthians 1 and 2 about the wisdom of this world.. Philosophy is necessary for at least two reasons: one is that the opponents of the faith often resort to philosophical concepts and arguments (sometimes without realizing it) and have to be answered in kind, and the other is the principle ‘the meaning of Scripture is scripture’.

GD: Who has had the biggest influence on your theological development?

PH: Theological development, did you say? I’m not sure there’s been much of that since I was about 18. Up till then, my father. There’s been a bit of theological intensification since.. But in my case How I Have Changed My Mind would be the title of a rather slim book. When I was about 18 ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God bowled me over.

GD: The validity of systematic theology is much under discussion at the moment. In his contribution to Always Reforming, Richard Gamble seemed to argue that systematics should transmute into biblical theology. In his The Drama of Doctrine, Kevin Vanhoozer has proposed that theology should be reconfigured in terms of theo-dramatics. Do you believe that systematic theology as practiced by Hodge and Berkhof has a role in contemporary theological reflection?

PH: For some reason the phrase ‘systematic theology’ has prestige. So there are all sorts of crazy proposals for calling this and that ‘systematic theology’. (It’s rather like someone wanting to call some Heath-Robinson contraption a Rolls Royce). The content of systematic theology should correspond with the label on the jar; it should be systematic, that is, connected up, coherent, consistent, contemporary, and as clear as can be, and it should be about God and his ways.. In view of these requirements, the Hodge-Berkhof tradition of systematic theology is indispensable. What I have chiefly complained about in print (in my usual cantankerous way) is that Hodge and co. have been dismissed in a shamefully unscholarly manner by various evangelical theologians (not including Richard Gamble) who should have known better – he is allegedly ‘foundationalist’, an ‘Enlightenment’ thinker, ‘inductive’, ‘scientific’, as a result of which he and his kind have been rubbished.. These epithets have been hurled at the poor man from ignoramuses who do not seem ever to have bothered to open the first pages of volume I of his Systematic Theology to see how he actually operates. What kind of scholarship is that?

There may well be other types of theology besides ‘systematic theology’ but they should be clearly labeled too.

GD: In your book, John Calvin's Ideas, you argue that the Reformer was no stand alone figure, divorced from the currents of medieval scholasticism that preceded him and the Reformed scholasticism that followed him. I think that the point was well made. But in which ways does Calvin stand out from the scholastic crowd?

PH: In at least these ways: He was of an anti-speculative turn of mind, and hence generally (though not always) spurned ‘What if?’ questions that the scholastics tended to favour. And he was firm on faith as involving fiducia and as well as assensus, which as a result makes theology a much more practical business than the run of the mill medieval scholastics thought of it. Augustine was a great influence of course, but then he also influenced Thomas Aquinas. But what evangelical these days reads anything before Luther? Or C.H. Spurgeon?

GD: In your contribution to Engaging with Barth, you discuss the theologian's doctrine of election. As I understand it, Barth held that God constituted Jesus as the elect man for the sake of all humanity. Evangelicals will have problems with his construction because of its universalistic overtones. But it seems to me that Reformed theology has often downplayed the role of Christ in election, making the doctrine seem a little abstract and remote. Calvin, however taught that Christ is the "mirror of our election". Would you agree that we should return to a more Christ-centred doctrine of election?

PH: I think that we ought to have problems with Barth’s construction not only because of what you mention, but also because it diminishes and even eliminates divine freedom.

But yes, the Pauline idea of union with Christ is fundamental provided that it is carefully handled Believers are chosen in Christ, but not (as far as I can see) because of Christ. Calvin’s phrase about Christ as the mirror of election has more to do with assurance than with the character of election per se.

GD: Does God take risks?

PH: No. He knows the end from the beginning and works all things after the counsel of his own will. However, ‘risk’ can be used to name some of what we, as creatures, are not sure of, and it may be said that the Incarnate Logos took risks in this sense, but I don’t favour such talk. It does not seem to resonate with what we find in the Gospels. (See Light Upon the River, Hymn Texts by Christopher M. Idle (St Matthias Press, 1998), note to ‘And did you risk yourself, O Christ?’ (p.134))

GD: This year marks the 250th anniversary of the death of Jonathan Edwards. What, in your assessment are the some of the key strengths and weaknesses of the great man's theology?

PH: The strength is also the weakness: a confidence in human reason which is in some respects breathtaking (the relentlessness of his argumentation in Freedom of the Will), in other respects ridiculous (his view of the continuity of things and people through time, as expressed in his Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin). In many ways he is an archetypal 18thcentury figure. Interesting that the influence of the Enlightenment should reach so powerfully into the recesses of New England; there is irony here, an arch-conservative using the ‘latest thought’ (in Edwards’ case Newton and Locke), to assist ole’ time religion. Perhaps there’s a lesson for us.

While one cannot but recognise his greatness Edwards has always seemed to me to have been a tiresome person, aristocratic, tactless and remote, and something of a know-all (justifiably perhaps!), but not someone I’d like to have had as a pastor. Sorry, I’m straying from your question.

GD: Tell us the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months. It is a must read because?

PH: ‘Helpful’ is an unhelpful word for me. I’m often helped by ‘unhelpful’ books. However, among the helpful books I’m helped by are some of the writings of John Frame, a long-standing friend. I think his Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (P & R, 2006), is very good.

GD: I too enjoyed Frame's book (see review here). Care to share your top three songs/pieces of music?

PH: Not easy. I enjoy the standards of classical music, and also W. Coast Jazz - Mulligan, Chet Baker, Miles Davis, Brookmeyer, etc. I’m also interested in jazz improvisations of classical themes and classically-influenced jazz from players such as Jacques Loussier, and more recently e.s.t.. In 2008 I’d like to explore the music of David Rhys-Williams a bit.

On another note I value Stuart Townend’s hymns, as many do, and also the ‘classical tradition’ of Watts, Charles Wesley, the Olney Hymns, Toplady etc.. But their use is rapidly vanishing; the days when people learned Christian doctrine by singing it are going, and we are being offered Telly-Tubby lyrics instead.

GD: Singing "eh-oh" a la the Telly-Tubbies doesn't quite seem appropriate for Christian worship. Watts, Wesley and Townend are much better. Now, what, in your view is the great challenge that faces evangelicalism today and how ought we to respond?

PH: To remain true to evangelicalism while nevertheless gaining the attention of people who are (apparently) a thousand miles away from it.

GD: Which theology blogs do you find helpful?

PH: I browse hardly at all. But as I said earlier, I am a fan of ‘Exiled Preacher’. That’s surely a positive note to end on!

GD: You are too kind. Thanks very much for stopping by for this conversation.

Who will be the next candidate for the hot seat? You'll have to wait and see.

Edward Taylor on God's overflowing love

Following on from my review of the Donne biog below, here is another metaphysical poet, the Puritan Edward Taylor. See here for more info & poems.

Meditation 1

What Love is this of thine, that Cannot bee
In thine Infinity, O Lord, Confinde,
Unless it in thy very Person see,
Infinity, and Finity Conjoyn'd?
What hath thy Godhead, as not satisfide
Marri'de our Manhood, making it its Bride?

Oh, Matchless Love! filling Heaven to the brim!
O're running it: all running o're beside
This World! Nay Overflowing Hell; wherein
For thine Elect, there rose a mighty Tide!
That there our Veans might through thy Person bleed,
To quench those flames, that else would on us feed.

Oh! that thy Love might overflow my Heart!
To fire the same with Love: for Love I would.
But oh! my streight'ned Breast! my Lifeless Sparke!
My Fireless Flame! What Chilly Love, and Cold?
In measure small! In Manner Chilly! See.
Lord blow the Coal: Thy Love Enflame in mee.

Thanks to Paul Helm for drawing Taylor to my attention. His blog has two new posts on Word and Spirit in Conversion & Analysis 8 - The Gifts of a King on justification and sanctification.

I would like to draw your attention...

Paul Helm, Analysis 7: Loosing Sight of the Insight - Calvin on the relationship between justification and sanctification & Forgiveness, Guilt and Harm - God's forgiveness and ours.

Byron Smith, The necessity of love - 1 Corinthians 13 for bloggers.

John Calvin's Ideas by Paul Helm

John Calvin's Ideas by Paul Helm, Oxford, 2006 paperback

Introduction

This book is an attempt to set important aspects of Calvin's teaching against the background of the reformer's interaction with medieval scholastic theology. It is often assumed that Calvin was a pure biblical theologian who rejected the overly speculative and philosophical scholastic tradition. Helm argues that Calvin's relationship with the tradition was a little more nuanced. He often appropriated scholastic methods, concepts and distinctions in formulating some of his key theological ideas. Later Reformed theology is sometimes accused of compromising on Calvin's anti-medieval stance by reverting to scholastic ways of thinking. But as Helm shows, Calvin gave his successors something of a precedent for plundering the best of the scholastic tradition in the service of Reformation theology. This does not mean that Calvin was uncritical of the wilder, speculative excesses of scholasticism. But he was not one to throw out the scholastic baby with the bathwater.

One of the valuable gains of setting Calvin in his historical context is that we are made more sensitive of the distance that separates the reformer from the preoccupations of our own time. He is often made a conversation partner in contemporary theological discussion without the realisation that Calvin's concerns are sometimes quite different from our own. It is anachronistic to make use of Calvin's ideas as if he were addressing our present post-Enlightenment world. The "Reformed Epistemology" movement associated with Alvin Plantinga is possibly guilty of this. Calvin's teaching on the sensus divinum (our innate sense of God) is used by Plantinga as the basis for "warranted belief" in God as a fundamental presupposition. But Calvin's concerns were not primarily epistemological - what we may warrantably believe, but soteriological, how sinners may have a saving knowledge of God. Throughout the book, Helm interacts not only with the primary Calvin literature, but with other interpreters of the Reformer such as Plantinga, Alister McGrath, and David Steinmetz.

Summary

Fundamental to Calvin's theology is the distinction between God as he is in himself (in se) and God as he is revealed to us (quoad nos). Such is God's stunning majesty, we cannot know his divine essence. But God is revealed to us truly and faithfully in his acts and in his Word. Calvin was against speculation about the divine essence because only God can know God as he is in himself. It is for us to be content with his gracious self-revelation. The distinction between God in se and God quoad nos is not original to Calvin. It is also found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics. Helm often draws attention to Calvin's use of Aquinas' theological concepts. The Reformer made use of his insights when he regarded them as helpful in understanding Scripture. At other times Calvin was critical of Aquinas' somewhat speculative theologising.

A chapter is devoted to Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity. Helm discusses Calvin's rejection of the traditional teaching on the eternal generation of the Son. Calvin taught that as God, the Son is autotheos. He did not derive his deity from the Father because deity is by definition underivable. But concerning his person, the Son is of the Father. Father is not, contra Augustine the fountainhead of the deity. Father, Son and Spirit are all autotheos. Helm wonders if the begotteness of the Son's person is any less problematic that the begottenness of his deity. But the genius of Calvin's formulation is that he strips begotteness of all causal connotations. The Son is the person of the Son in relation to the Father. While Calvin asserted that the Son (and the Spirit) are homoousion with the Father, he still wished to maintain an order of Persons within the one God. It was appropriate to who God is in himself that the Father sent the Son into the world and that the Father and Son sent the Spirit. Next, Helm turns his attention to The Extra - Calvin's teaching that when the Son became man he did not cease to be God. Helm clarifies exactly what Calvin meant by this in relation to Chalcedonian orthodoxy and then proceeds to examine the Reformer's teaching on the communication of attributes within the person of the incarnate Son.

It is sometimes suggested that predestination was the axiom from which Calvin drew his theological system. Precisely to avoid such misunderstanding, Helm does not give a chapter to this theme. This is a bit of a shame, but in Providence and Evil, we are given an account of Calvin's understanding of the will of God in relation to sin and suffering. For God, providence is not "risky" because everything that happens is in accordance with his sovereign, yet secret will. In his providential dealings with creation, God respects the reality of secondary causes and is not the author of sin. We cannot fully understand why God allowed sin and suffering, for we cannot know as God knows. The "free will defence" is not an adequate response to the problem of evil because God could have endued Adam with the ability to resist temptation. The subjects of human personality and free will are considered in the following two chapters.

If the first six chapters have to do with Calvin's metaphysics, the next three deal with his epistemology. Divine accommodation, natural theology and revelation are all discussed. As we cannot know God in se, he must accommodate himself to our capacities. This especially involves God's relationship to time. God may threaten to bring death and destruction to sinners and then appear to change his mind when human beings turn from their sin. Calvin's concept of divine accommodation comes into its own as an attempt to account for this apparent change of mind on God's part. When it comes to natural theology, Calvin argued that all human beings have an innate sense of God. This sense may be corrupted by sin so that human beings worship idols instead of the true God. But the sensus divinitas, backed up by the testimony of creation speaks to all men of God's existence, goodness and power. In the chapter on revelation, Helm notes that Calvin was willing to appeal to "external proofs" that the Bible is the Word of God such as the fulfillment of prophecy and the testimony of the church. But the believer comes to accept the Bible as God's self-revelation, not primarily because of these external proofs, but on the basis of the witness of the Spirit. We are given Holy Spirit certainty that the Bible is God's Word.

The next three chapters focus on Calvin's ethical theology. In a fascinating chapter on Angels, we are led through a discussion of whether God, in his hidden, absolute righteousness would be justified in condemning unfallen angels. Helm draws on Calvin's sermons on Job as well as the Institutes to show that although we cannot understand God's righteousness in se, we can can trust him not to act arbitrarily. As the author shows in The Power Dialectic, for Calvin, God's will must never be reduced to absolute power as if might were right. God's will is conditioned by his righteous character. Calvin was no "divine command theorist" who believed that something was right just because God commanded it at the time, although God could impose a contradictory command at a later date. God's commandments are an expression of his infinitely righteous being. In Equity, Natural Law, and Common Grace, Helm considers the relationship between Calvin's teaching on equity - our natural sense of right and wrong and the law. There has been a tendency among some Reformed scholars to pit the scholastic teaching on natural law against Calvin's concept of common grace. However, Helm shows that Calvin had a lot in common with Aquinas on the subject of natural law, although the Reformer was less optimistic than the Schoolman about fallen man's ability to follow the dictates of equity. Both natural law and common grace have a place in Calvin's theology.

In the final chapter on Faith, Atonement, and Time, attention is given to Calvin's attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between what the Bible says about God's love for his elect, the atonement and the wrath of God. Why does the Bible say that God is angry with elect sinners until they believe in Christ? If God has atoned for the sins of his people in Christ, why does he threaten them with wrath and judgement? For Calvin this is resolved by appealing to the notion of divine accommodation. God appears to be angry with his eternally loved people to awaken them to embrace salvation in Christ. But would it not be better to say that God can be angry with those whom he loves and that his anger is only turned away when sinners trust in the propitiatory work of Christ? Next, Helm discusses Calvin's teaching that faith is the condition for salvation in relation to Barth's view that conditionality compromises grace. For Barth, faith is simply the recognition that the sinner is saved in Christ. Faith itself does not save. But in Calvin, faith (itself a gift of God) is the instrumental cause of a salvation that rests on the finished work of Christ.

Conclusion

If, like me you are not used to philosophical reasoning, then it may take a chapter or so before you get "up to speed" with this book. But it is well worth persevering because Helm throws some important light on the teaching of Calvin, which, in turn enables the reader to have a deeper grasp of Scriptural theology. Calvin was a master theologian and Helm is an attentive interpreter of his work. Some of the big themes in theology are tackled in this book - the doctrine of God, the Trinity, the Person of Christ, Providence, the doctrine of man and so on. Throughout, Helm appeals directly to Calvin's teaching and the text of Scripture. Calvin's complex relationship with scholasticism is handled well. As Helm shows, the Reformer could sometimes speculate. He wondered whether Christ might have become incarnate even if man did not fall into sin. His doctrine of the soul drew to some extent on Greek philosophy. Later Reformed theology followed Calvin in making selective use of the best insights of scholastic teaching. I suppose that if anything I have tended to see Calvin as a "pure biblical theologian" who was preceded and followed by speculative scholastics. Reading this book has helped to correct this and hopefully enabled me to read Calvin with greater historical sensitivity. For a work of philosophical theology, the text is packed with homely illustrations of blind ferrets and highly desirable cream cakes. At one point Helm tells us that he was wearing trousers when writing this book and that in his opinion he is a good looking, jolly good fellow!

John Calvin's Ideas is a must for serious Calvin scholars. Pastors will also find much that is helpful and enlightening here. Often we need to face theological issues like, how will we handle Scriptures that teach that God "repents" from punishing sinners when they repent? Is God inconsistent? Does he really change his mind? Calvin via Helm will help us to find our bearings on such matters. It is good for us to read works such as this that stretch our minds and stir our souls. On finishing this book I was left with a renewed appreciation of Calvin's theological genius. But more than that, I was moved to worship Calvin's great God, whose glory is beyond comprehension and whose love for us in Christ passes knowledge. This infinite God, whose essence is concealed has condescended to reveal himself to sinners such as us,

"For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness." (Inst I:13:1, cited on p. 20).