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.

Richard Gaffin Study Day: The Resurrection in the Theology of Paul

Session 3: The Resurrection in the Theology of Paul: An Overview

Introduction

Paul's "theology" is God's word: 1 Thess 2:13, and is to be received as such. The centre of Paul's gospel is Christ's death and resurrection: e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-4. The death and resurrection of Christ are mutually dependent in the salvation of sinners. The cross only saves because Jesus is risen. He was raised from the dead because he died on the cross for our sins, Romans 4:25.

The resurrection of Jesus has been the subject of relative neglect in Reformation theology. In general the church in the west has tended to think of salvation in terms of being saved from the guilt of sin. Hence the overwhelming emphasis on the cross at the expense of the resurrection. Often the bodily resurrection of Jesus is only mentioned in the context of an evidentialist defence of the facts. But Paul's focus is on the soteriological significance of the resurrection. It was good to hear Gaffin make this point as I've long felt this to be the case.

1. The unity between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers

1 Cor 15:20: Christ the "firstfruits". The firstfruits were offered to God as a part of the whole harvest. The resurrection is one great event in two episodes. Christ the "firstfruits" guarantees the ingathering of the whole resurrection harvest.

1 Cor 15:12-19 stresses the inseparable bond between Christ and the resurrection of his people.

Col 1 : 18: Christ the "firstborn". He is supreme over death and able to save his people from the power of the grave.

2. The believer's resurrection as a present reality

In Eph 2:1-3 those who are dead in sin "walk according to the course of this world". In Eph 2:10, believers walk in good works. What makes the difference? They have been raised with Christ, Eph 2:5-6: the new "walk" (Col 2:12-13; 3:1; Rom 6:1ff.; Gal 2:20)

3. Summary

There are three factors in Paul's theology of the resurrection. 1) The resurrection of Christ. 2) The present resurrection of the believer's "inner self". 3) The future resurrection of believers.

The distinction between "inner self" and "outer self " is made on the basis of 2 Cor 4: 16. Better than talking about a present "spiritual" resurrection and a future "bodily" resurrection. As for Paul, "spiritual" means of the Holy Spirit, not immaterial, 1 Cor 15:44. The believer will never be more resurrected that he already is in the core of his being.

4. Conclusions and expansions

a) The resurrection and Christ

It is significant primarily for his humanity, not his deity, "by man" (1 Cor 15:21); "the last Adam," "the second man" (1 Cor 15:45, 47)

In Paul's teaching Christ was "raised," not "rose". He is the passive object of God's resurrection power. A different emphasis is found in John 2:19-22 & 10:17-18. In Paul the resurrection is not so much a proof of Christ's deity as the vindication of the incarnate Son who suffered and died for sinners.

The Holy Spirit: At his resurrection Jesus became "the life-giving Spirit" 1 Cor 15:45. This is Paul's commentary on Pentecost cf. 2 Cor 3: 17 & Rom 1 :3-4.

b) The resurrection, the Holy Spirit and the Christian

- (the future) 1 Cor 15:44: the "spiritual" body
- (the present) the Christian life: Rom 8:9-11; Phil 1 :6

c) The resurrection and the creation: Rom 8:19-23

In discussion we reflected on the way in which the resurrection of Christ tends to be neglected in Reformed systematic theology. In the traditional schema, discussion of the atonement is followed immediately by treatment of the application of redemption as if we could be saved by a dead Christ (see here). Also the believer's present "inner" resurrection is not often emphasised because of the focus on the ordo salutis. It would be better if the organising principle of Reformed soteriology was union with Christ. Only in that context should the ordo be discussed - as per Calvin in the Institutes. It is worthwhile noting that the final chapter of Book III of the Institutes is devoted to the resurrection of the body - Christ's and ours (see here).

In these notes I've only put a little meat on the bones of what Gaffin had to say at the Pastors' Forum. For more see his excellent Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology, (P&R). It was a real privilege to listen to Gaffin's lectures. His careful attention to Scripture and exegetical rigor in the mold of John Murray make him an exemplary theologian and teacher. He doesn't simply regurgitate great dollops of Reformed theology, he is a truly biblical systematic theologian.

Richard Gaffin Study Day: Christ in the Old Testament

Session 2: Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics Interpreting the New Testament in the Light of the Old Testament: Christ in the Old Testament

Luke 24 Christ in the Old Testament
44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

25 And he said to them, "0 foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Does the Old Testament reveal Christ? Some conservative scholars (like Peter Enns, see here?) believe that Christ cannot be directly found in the Old Testament. When New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament with reference to Christ they were finding things in the text that were alien to the original meaning. Jesus' teaching here in Luke 24 calls that view into question. He taught that the Old Testament was about him.

The setting for Luke 24:44-49 is that in his resurrection body, Jesus has entered his state of exaltation, but he has not yet gone to the place of exaltation - at the right hand of the Father. What we have here in these verses is typical of Jesus' teaching during the 40 days between his resurrection and the ascension. This is an an extremely succinct account of that happened further. The vantage point in the passage is that of the resurrected Jesus. He is the same Jesus who was crucified, but he is different. Note, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you" (vs. 44). Jesus is no longer with his followers in the same way as prior to his resurrection.

This is a time of teaching, verses 44-47. In his teaching Jesus recapitulates what he said to his followers while he was still with them, vs. 44. In that period the focus of Jesus' teaching was the Gospel of the kingdom. Now Jesus shows that his message was the substance of the Old Testament, "that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (vs. 44).

What is the scope/circumference of the teaching? Jesus said, "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms". This is further unpacked in - verses 44-45. See also what Jesus said earlier to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, - "27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. " (v. 27) .

Does this mean that Jesus was speaking of all the things in the Old Testament than concerned him in the sense of a narrow range of directly prophetic material? Or did he mean that all things in the Old Testament had to do with him without exception? Gaffin opted for the second option. The whole of the Old Testament scriptures are ultimately about Jesus. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Christ is "the consent of all the parts [of the OT], the scope of the whole" (WCF 1 :5).

Verses 46-47 provide the focus/centre of the teaching, "it is written": Christ's death and resurrection (messianic suffering and glory) and world­ wide gospel preaching. This is what the Old Testament is all about: "Everything about me": Jesus' death and resurrection and the gathering of the church as a people who repented from sin on believing the gospel. In the Old Testament you cannot have Christ without his church. No promise was made to Israel that was not fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Where is this teaching found in the Old Testament? Not in one single verse, but in the whole as Christ is "the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole". The Old Testament without remainder is anticipatory and prophetic of Christ. He is inherent in the original meaning of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is to be understood in its redemptive-historical sense. Jesus is central to the revelation of the triumph of God in Scripture from Genesis 3:15 onwards.

Other passages in the New Testament back up this view. We have the apostolic preaching in Acts 3:18, 24 & 26:22-23.

Also 1 Peter 1:10-12

1. Salvation in Christ is the preoccupation of Old Testament revelation.

2. The prophetic message is unified by the one Spirit speaking through each of them.

3. The focus of the prophets is on the suffering and glory of Christ, vs. 11.

4. The Old Testament witness in its intention and focus was written for the new testament people of God, vs. 12. The Old Testament with its focus on Christ is for us.

Christ in the Old Testament - two extremes to be avoided.

Is Christ in every sentence of the Old Testament? Yes and no. It is wrong to restrict references to Christ to scriptures that are clearly messianic, like Psalm 16 or Isaiah 53. It is all about Jesus. But this does not mean that we have to go searching for hidden allegorical meanings that point to Jesus in every verse. It is not like the "Find Wally" books for children ("Find Waldo" US). But every Old Testament passage is about Christ when understood in a redemptive-historical context - covenant, kingdom etc. The tragic story of the decline and fall of Israel reveals that Jesus meets Israel's need. The Old Testament people of God were saved by believing in what Christ would do for them. The New Testament people of God are saved by believing in what Christ has done for us. But it is the same Christ who saves under both covenants. The Old Testement from beginning to end is about Jesus, John 5:46.

Richard Gaffin at the Pastors' Forum

The next Pastors' Forum Study Day is coming up this Thursday, 5th November. The speaker will be Rev. Prof. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia). I've long admired Gaffin's work, especially in the fields of union with Christ and the resurrection of the body, and the relationship between biblical and systematic theology.

Here's the programme for the day:

09.30 Registration & Refreshments
10.00 Welcome, Introductions and Devotions.
10.15 Richard Gaffin - "What is Biblical Theology & how is it related to Systematic Theology?"
11.00 Coffee
11.20 Richard Gaffin - "How to interpret and preach the OT in the light of the NT"
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Richard Gaffin - "The resurrection in Paul."
15.40 Close.

Pastors' Forum

Here is the programme for the Pastors' Forum, held at Mount Pleasant Chapel, Measycwmmer.

Thursday 11th June 2009 - Prof. John L. Mackay (New College, Edinburgh)

09.30 Registration & Refreshments

10.00 Neil Evans - Introduction & Devotions

10.15 Prof. John L. Mackay - The Relevance of the Old Testament to Preaching

11.00 Coffee Break

11.20 Prof. John L. Mackay - Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Prof. John L. Mackay - Preaching from Kings and Chronicles.

15.40 Close

Thursday 10th September 2009 - Dr. R. Neil Evans

1) The biblical doctrine of personhood and its pastoral implications

2) The nature of mental wellbeing

3) Practical considerations

Thursday 5th November 2009 - Prof. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

1) What is biblical theology & how is it related to systematic theology?

2) How to interpret and preach from the OT in the light of the NT

3) The resurrection in Paul.

Thursday 12th March 2010 - Prof. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

1) 18th Century Evangelicalism: the Bebbington Quadrilateral

2) The Bebbington Quadrilateral - a critique

3) Theological evaluation of 'Conversionism'

Interested? Drop me an e-mail if you would like to be added to the mailing list for further details.

Donald Macleod on practical trinitarianism

I returned to the Land of my Fathers yesterday for the inaugural meeting of the Pastors' Forum. Our speaker was Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church College Edinburgh. It was interesting that in his opening remarks Macleod felt the need to doff his cap to "the Doctor". As a younger man he had been quite critical of Lloyd-Jones' teaching on the baptism with the Holy Spirit in his book, The Spirit of Promise. The theologian assured us of his respect and admiration for Lloyd-Jones. He still disagreed with him on the work of the Spirit, but Macleod seemed to admit to a certain youthful impertinence in his earlier critique of the preacher's doctrine. Having got that out of the way, we were off.

Macleod gave an introductory address on the purpose of theology and then gave two lectures on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the first he set forth the doctrine on the basis of Scripture, taking into account the historic creeds and confessions of the church. Interestingly he disagreed with Luther's famous statement that justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Macleod insisted that the deity of Christ, as defined by the Nicene formula that the Son is homoousios with the Father is more fundamental. Unless the Son is of the same substance as the Father, the incarnation is not a true revelation of God. The atoning work of Christ is sufficient to save sinners only because he who died was both fully God and fully man. Justification, indeed the whole of the Christian faith rests on homoousion.

Macleod warned of the danger of adopting a solo scriptura approach to doctrine that dismissed the value of confessions of faith. While the full deity of Christ is clearly taught in Scripture, the Nicene Creed, accepted by the whole church, helps to safeguard the confession that Jesus Christ is God the Son. When Dissenters like Philip Doddridge began to sideline confessions of faith, Arianism soon followed.

In his second address on the Trinity, the Professor set out some of the Practical Implications of the doctrine. Here are some notes of what he had to say together with one or two critical reflections,

1. The Trinity and our understanding of God

The Trinity reminds us of the mysteriousness of God. How he can be three and one is beyond our human experience and understanding. God can only be known because he has chosen to reveal himself to us. Our knowledge of him is a partial, ectypal knowledge of his archetypal knowledge of himself. Theological reflection brings us face to face with the mystery of God, whose ways are past finding out, Romans 11:33-36.

2. How God is love

God is love not first and foremost because he loves human beings. If that were the case, then he did not love before we were made. The Unitarian conception of God makes his existence loveless before he brought us into being. His love is the divine response to creaturely existence. But it is not something that is intrinsic to his own inner life. It cannot therefore be properly said of a solitary monad that "God is love", 1 John 4:8. However, the doctrine of the Trinity explicates how God is love. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed in a relationship of love, with each person loving the other and being loved by the other. On that basis alone we can say that God is love. Love is intrinsic to his very existence and divine identity. Yes, the intertrinirarian love flows out to the creature (John 17:26). But God's love did not find its origin in his relationship to human beings made in his image. He is love first and foremost within the relationship between the co-equal and co-eternal Persons of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The depth of God's love for us is seen in that he gave his one and only Son, whom he had loved from eternity, to the suffering of the cross for our salvation, Romans 8:32. John 3:16 only makes sense in the context of trinitarian theology. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son... The glory of penal substitutionary atonement is that it was none other than the Son of God who paid the price of sin for us.

3. The Trinity and our understanding of human beings

It is significant that God said "Let us make man in our image", Genesis 1:26. According to Macleod this means that were made in the image of the Triune God. Maybe it would be better to say that we were made in the image of God, the image of God being his Son (Hebrews 1:3). Certainly, the goal of redemption is that sin is removed so that we are conformed to the image of God's Son (Colossians 1:15, 3:9 & 10, Romans 8:29). But if we were made in the image of God in this second sense, then we still have to say that the Son as the image of God has always existed in union with the Father and the Spirit. A solitary existence is not a option for God's image-bearers. Being in an I-Thou relationship with others is part and parcel of what it means to be human. That is why it was not good for Adam to be alone. He needed Eve, his equal in bearing God's image, yet his other as woman to complete him. This does not mean that getting married and having children are essential to a full human life. But a reclusiveness that avoids human relationships is not an option. The Word was "with God" (John 1:1). We need to be with others. Jesus was single, yet he chose the twelve to be with him and was surrounded by a circle of friends. A similar point could be made regarding Paul, who was single, but rarely without human fellowship and company.

Mrs. Thatcher was so wrong in saying that "there is no such thing as society". Human society is vastly important. Drawing on the doctrine of the Trinity we can say that in society all human beings are equal. Each is worthy of our love and respect. Yet we are all different. A good society will recognise the true dignity and value of each human life and give space for people to be themselves. We have to beware of social trinitarianism which collapses God's unique triune life into human society. And we have to stress that it is the church as God's chosen people that gives the fullest expression of human life modelled on the unity and diversity of the Trinity. But Macleod makes some good points here. In our increasingly impersonal, fragmented and lonely world we need to be reminded that human beings were made for society and community. It is not good for man to be alone.

4. The Trinity and soteriology

In traditional systematics, distinct aspects of the work of salvation are often attributed to each person of the Trinity. The Father chooses, the Son redeems by his blood and the Spirit applies the work of salvation. But this neat pattern does not reflect the witness of Scripture. Each aspect of salvation is thoroughly trinitarian. The Father chose us in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit. In the incarnation the Father sent the Son into the world as man by the power of the Holy Spirit. At the cross, the Son offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit. In terms of the application of redemption, God made us alive together with Christ when we were born again by the Holy Spirit. Eschatologically, we shall be raised to life and glory by the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead. Systematics should reflect the trinitarian concerns of Scripture when seeking to construct a truly biblical account of soteriology.

5. The Trinity and the church

Church life is modelled on the unity and diversity of the Trinity (John 17, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12). The sharing and co-operation of God's trinitarian life and acts should be exemplified in the church. Jesus makes the perichoretic relations of the Trinity the pattern and dynamic for Christian unity in John 17:20, 21, 26. Are believers lovingly involved in one anothers' lives, without that concern becoming meddlesome and intrusive?

Under this heading. Macleod suggested that being born again is the basis of church unity. I suppose that is right in one very important respect. All truly born again people have certainly been united to the body of Christ by the Spirit of God. But Macleod's proposal calls for careful qualification. All the major Christian traditions claim that the visible church is composed of born again people, at least ideally. However, understanding of what is entailed by the new birth differs widely. The Roman Catholic conception of baptismal regeneration is quite different from the Evangelical Protestant (and I would argue biblical) position. An untested claim that a Church is comprised of "born again" believers is not a sufficient ground for ecumenical unity. How this can be squared with the theologian's earlier insistence on the importance of creeds and confessions, I'm not exactly sure. Besides, Scripture insists that other important truths like justification by faith alone cannot be sidelined for the sake of visible unity - Galatians 1.

Macleod wrapped things up with some helpful reflections on how we may ensure that the prayers, singing and teaching of the church are thoroughly Trinitarian.

In all this was an auspicious start to the Pastors' Forum. It also was good meet up with some old friends and nice to bump into fellow blogger Stephen Dancer, whom I had interviewed, but never met outside the confines of cyberspace.

The Pastors' Forum

The inaugural meeting of the Pastors' Forum is due to take place on Wednesday 11th of March. Professor Donald Macleod is scheduled to speak on "The Holy Trinity". See programme below for more details. I hope to attend together with some friends from this part of the world. Speakers for forthcoming Forum events include Richard Gaffin, Don Carson, Carl Trueman and David Bebbington. Looks like this could be an exiting development that has the potential to be of great help and encouragement for pastor-teachers. Drop me an e-mail if you would like some more information.