BULLINGER AND JUSTIFICATION

Peter Opitz’ Habilitationsschrift “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologe” has an important section on justification, sanctification and communion with Christ in Bullinger’s The Decades. Here is one quote from page 262.

“Die Rechtfertigungslehre wird in einen gesamtbiblisch-heilsgeschichtlichen-Horizont des göttlichen Heilshandelns eingezeichnet.”

Bullinger on Justification and Sanctification

Earlier posts have referred to the conclusion of Mark Burrows who argues that Bullinger virtually identifies justification with sanctification. The following are some sections from the Decades Ivi – readers of this blog can make their own conclusions:

“And first I will shew you, that this term of justification is taken in this present treatise for the absolution and remission of sins, for sanctification, and adoption into the number of the sons of God…. Justification of life therefore is an absolution from sins, a delivery from death, a quickening or translating from death to life. For in the fourth to the Romans the same apostle expoundeth justification by sanctification, and sanctification by the remission of sins. For in treating of faith, whereby we are justified, or which God imputeth to us for righteousness without works, he saith: ‘Even as David also doth expound the blessedness of that man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.’ What could be more plainly spoken than this? For he doth evidently expound justification by sanctification, and sanctification by remission of sins. Furthermore, what else is sanctification but the adoption whereby we are received into the grace and number of the sons of God?.... By all this it is made manifest, that the question of justification containeth nothing else but the manner and reason of sanctification; that is to say, whereby how men have their sins forgiven, and are received into the grace and number of the sons of God, and, being justified, are made heirs of the kingdom of God. (Parker ed pp105-107)

The Latin is:

Principio demonstrabo iustificationis vocabulum in praesenti causa usurpari pro absolutione sive remissione peccatorum, pro beatificatione et adoptione in numerum filiorum dei….. Est ergo iustificatio vitae absolutio a peccatis, liberatio a morte, vivicatio seu translatio a morte in vitam. Nam in 4.cap. idem apostolus ad Rom. iustificationem exponit per beatificationem et hanc per remissionem peccatorum. Disputans enim de fide, qua iustificamur vel quam nobis imputat deus pro iustitia absque operibus: >Quemadmodum et David explicat<, inquit, >beatificationem hominis, cui deu imputat iustitiam absque operibus: Beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum obtecta sunt peccata< [Röm 4,6f] etc. Quid clarius adferri his poterat? Manisfeste enim iustificationem exponit per beatificationem et hanc per remissionem peccatorum. Praeterea quid est beatificatio aliud quam adoptio ea, qua recipimur in gratiam et numerum filiorum dei?..... Ex quibus omnibus planum fit quęstionem de iustificatione aliud non continere quam modum et rationem beatificandi, nempe per quid aut quomodo remittantur homnibus peccata, recipiantur autem in gratiam et in numerum filiorum dei fiantque iusti et haeredes regni dei. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, pp69,70)

The modern German is:

Zuerst will ich aufzeigen, dass der Wort >Gerechtsprechung< im vorliegenden Fall für den Erlass oder die Vergebung der Sünden verwendet wird, für die Vierleihung der Seligkeit und die Aufnahme in die Schar der Kinder Gottes….Wiederum wird die Gerechtsprechung zum Leben der Verurteilung zum Tode gegenübergestellt, die wegen der Sünde über uns verhängt worden ist. Also ist die Gerechtsprechung zum Leben die Vergebung der Sünden, die Befreiung vom Tod, das Lebenigmachen oder Überführen vom Tod ins Leben. Denn im Römerbrief, Kapitel 4, erklärt der Apostel die Gerechtprechung durch di Seligmachung und diese durch die Vergebung der Sünden. Denn über den Glauben, durch den wir gerechtgesprochen werden und den uns Gott ohne Werke zur Gerechtigkeit anrechnet, sagt er [Röm 4,6f]: >Wie denn auch David die Seligpreisung des Menschen ausspricht, dem Gott die Gerechtigkeit ohne Werke zurechnet: > Selig sind die, deren Übertretungen vergeben und deren Sünden bedeckt sind.<< Wie könnte man es noch deutlicher aussprechen? Denn ausdrücklich erläutert er die Gerechtsprechung durch die Seligpreisung und diese wiederum durch die Vergebung der Sünden. Was ist die Seligpreisung außerdem anderes als die Annahme, durch die wir in die Gnade und in die Schar der Kinder Gottes aufgenommen werden? …. Als alleden wird deutlich, dass die Frage nach der Gerechtsprechung nichts anderes zum Inhalt hat als die Art und Weise, wie man selig wird, nämlich wodurch und die wie den Menschen ihre Sünden vergeben werden, wie sie zu Gnaden und in die Schar der Kinder Gottes aufgenommen werden und wie sie gerecht und zu Erben des Reiches Gottes werden. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p128-130)

A note needs to made about the terminology used by Bullinger. With respect to beatificatio the Parker edition of the Decades has this in the footnote on page 106: “This is the term which Bullinger employs in this Treatise of Justification, and which the translator, rather unhappily, has rendered sanctification. The idea intended by Bullinger is expressed in Rom. iv.7, which he quotes – cf Calvin, Instit. Lib. III, cap II. 4. & 22.”

Burrows has the following comment re the translation of beatificatio in one of his footnotes: “Throughout this English rendition, the translators opted to express this as ‘sanctification’, which initially at least appears an unfelicitous reading. Thus, the editors of the Parker Society text point this supposed ‘error’ out at every juncture of the way. Yet our wider reading of Bullinger’s oevre – and, specifically, the consideration of how he spoke of sanctification in his mature writings – suggests that his intention of speaking of ‘beatificatio’ was that of describing our growth not in grace but in obedience – the very process which Bullinger, like Calvin, otherwise describes as ‘sanctificatio’. The point is that Bullinger always resists the traditional Catholic reading of sanctification as a ‘progress’ in righteousness; justification and sanctification rely on the one righteousness of Christ, and derive exclusively from Christ’s ‘fromgheit’. This makes it all the more difficult to minimize Bullinger’s use of ‘beatificatio’, since he uses it in a manner similar to his pronouncements elsewhere on sanctification. And, we must here recall that this word was understood in medieval theology to describe the final union of the believer with God. It is, in this historically familiar sense, an ‘eschatological’ term. Hence, Bullinger’s intentions, particularly if he is here addressing – and altering – common expectations of his hearers/readers, seems to have been to flatten out this eschatological interpretation of ‘beatificatio’ and to bring it into line with the believer’s present life in Christ. To recall a characteristic theme of his, as articulated in the Second Helvetic Confession: ‘Christus intra nos vivens’. This is, thus, a powerful reworking of an established tradition, by which he perceives the Christian not as a ‘viator’ wandering in this nether world of shadows and hoping for a full vision of God hereafter, rather, this pilgrim is already beatified, already ‘in’ God through Christ’s righteousness. The English translators seem to be vindicated on this crucial point, since their reading captures the full force of Bullinger’s critical revision of this medieval tradition.”

Burrows' analysis, therefore, is that Bullinger uses beatificatio in both a ‘realized eschatlogical’ as well as a ‘future eschatological’ sense. The ‘realized eschatological’ sense is rooted in gratia. The ‘future eschatlogical’ sense is linked to vivificatio and Bullinger’s oft reminder to live integer before the Lord.

See Peter Opitz’s Habilitationschrift – Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: eine Studie zu den especially the following sections:

IV 2.2.5 Iustificatio als sanctificatio aufgrund der communio mit Christus

IV 4 Sanctificatio als vivificatio, poenitentia und restitutio der imago Dei

Bullinger on Justification and Sanctification

Is Fesko (see the reference to his article on Bullinger and union with Christ in an earlier post) correctly reflecting Bullinger in concluding: “Though Bullinger prioritizes justification over sanctification, he does not render them asunder. Both justification and sanctification are aspects of union with Christ. He also shows that they are united but distinct: ‘But grace or faith and works, justification also and sanctification, are so joined together, that they cannot be severed one from another…. I verily neither dare nor do in any ease gainsay, that faith and works do cleave together.’ So for Bullinger, justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together, but neither are they confused.” (the quotation is from the Decades 3ix).

The previous post noted that Fesko makes no reference to Burrows’celebrated article “‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sancification” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol.98(no.1), pp48-69. The following is part of footnote 2 from this article.

“The theme of the union of justification and sanctification, and the parallel established by the Church’s Christological language, emerges as a central argument in Calvin’s 1559 edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion: ‘As Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable – namely, righteousness [or, justification which results from God’s ‘free acceptance’] and sanctification’. III.xi.6…..W. Niesel rightly concludes, in respect of Calvin’s argument, that ‘the two things – justification and sanctification – are one in [Christ], but only in Him’. W.Niesel, The Theology of Calvin p138. Alfred Goehler reaches the same conclusion regarding Calvin: ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des göttlichen Gnadenwirkens kommt darin zum Ausdruck, daß Rechtfertigung unf Heiligung immer gleichzetig vom Menschen ergriffen warden können… Da Gott beide Gnadengaben gleichzeitig schenken will, ist es unmöglich, die Heiligung zeitlich oder genetisch der Rechfertigung nachfolgen zu lassen… Gott [heiligt und rechfertigt] in völliger Parallelität’. Alfred Goehler, Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung. Dargestellt auf Grund der Institutio, exegetischer und homiletischer Schriften (1934) pp87-88. Clearly, the parallel development of this theme in Bullinger and Calvin is more than accidental, for we have here come upon a distinct identity of argument and even terminological distinctions. In this case, moreover, Bullinger’s contribution antedates that of Calvin, a fact which supports our contention that Bullinger is a constructive and original theologian in his own right”.

Burrows comes to the following analysis:

“In the Decades, the early emphases we have noted from Bullinger’s commentaries become even more pronounced. In this collection of sermons, Bullinger introduces what must be seen as a characteristic theme in this theology: namely, his fusion of the justification and sanctification doctrines. As he argues in a sermon from the First Decade, Paul ‘doth expound justification by sanctification, and sanctification by remission of sins… The question of justification containeth nothing else but the manner and reason of sanctification’. And as he goes on to argue in a manner strikingly reminiscent of Melanchthon’s insistence that the justified person can and must do good works, we hear Bullinger affirming the necessity with which faith brings forth good works:

‘…whereas we say that the faithful are justified by faith alone, or else by faith without works, we do not say, as many think we do, that faith is post alone, or utterly destitute of good works: for wheresoever faith is, there also it sheweth itself by good works, because the righteous cannot but work righteousness’.”

This quotation from the Decades can be found in the Parker ed p118. The Latin is:

Praeterea cum dicimus sola fide aut fide absque operibus iustificari credentes, non hoc dicimus, quod multi intelligunt, fidem esse solam aut destitutam bonis operibus. Nam ubicunque fides est, ibi se se exerit per bona opera. Iustus enim non potest non operari iustitiam. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p76)

The modern German is:

Wenn ich sage, dass die Gläubigen allein durch den Glauben oder durch den Glauben ohne Werke gerechtgesprochen werden, so meine ich damit nicht, wie viele annehmen, dass der Glaube getrennt und entblößt von guten Werken sei. Denn wo immer Glaube ist, da äußert er sich auch durch gute Werke. Denn ein Gerechter kann nicht anders als gerecht handeln. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p142)

Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification

J.V. Fesko has written an article “Heinrich Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification” in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 6 (2010), pp3-10. Fesko has written widely on justification, specifically on the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. He has written, for example, “A Critical Examination of N.T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification” in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol 1 (2005), pp102-115.

In this article, Fesko seeks to respond to many authors who see union in Christ in the writing of Calvin as the context for understanding justification and sanctification. In citing the work of William Evans, Imputation and Impartation (Carlisle/Eugene: Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 2008), Fesko summarizes: “Evans explains that Calvin gave causal priority to union with Christ, in that justification and sanctification were communicated through union; union with Christ is the instrumental basis of both justification and sanctification. Justification should not have logical priority over sanctification, but rather union with Christ should have logical priority over both justification and sanctification.”

Fesko endeavours to demonstrate that Bullinger (primarily from the Decades and the Compendium) affirms the ordo salutis of later Reformed theology (‘Calvinism’) in giving priority to justification over sanctification. He acknowledges that one might easily conclude that Bullinger’s doctrine of union with Christ is undifferentiated – ie that he does not make distinctions between justification and sanctification. He concludes: “Though Bullinger prioritizes justification over sanctification, he does not render them asunder. Both justification and sanctification are aspects of union with Christ. He also shows that they are united but distinct: ‘But grace or faith and works, justification also and sanctification, are so joined together, that they cannot be severed one from another…. I verily neither dare nor do in any ease gainsay, that faith and works do cleave together.’ So for Bullinger, justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together, but neither are they confused.” (the quotation is from the Decades 3ix)

Fesko concludes his article in the following fashion: “This essay has demonstrated that Evans’ construction of the relationship between Calvin and the subsequent Reformed tradition requires greater nuance and exploration of the work of other Reformed theologians such as Bullinger. Bullinger clearly affirms the doctrine of union with Christ, which features prominently in his doctrine of election, since those elected are in Christ. But he also does so in conjunction with his basic ordo salutis, which accords justification priority over sanctification. Bullinger prioritizes justification by giving it chief place – that which secures our salvation and is the lens through which the believer is always viewed – but he does not emphasize it to the exclusion of sanctification. Rather, ‘Good works belong to grace, but after a certain manner, order, and fashion.’” (another quotation from the Decades 3ix)

I am not in a position to critically evaluate Fesko’s understanding of Bullinger. Fesko has certainly prompted us to further study Bullinger’s works. However, I would like to make the following observations.

Fesko has based his conclusions on his understanding of the Decades, the Compendium and the Second Helvetic Confession. He does not refer to Bullinger’s commentaries with respect to key New Testament texts.

Fesko does not refer to Burrows' work that has been referred to in previous posts of this blog - Mark S. Burrows, “ ‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification”, Zeitschschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol. 98 (no.1), 1987, pp48-69. This widely cited work of Burrows argues that that a characteristic feature of Bullinger’s thought is “the manner in which he speaks of sanctification in essential identity with justification, as two aspects of Christ’s one saving act.” As far as I can see those who cite Burrows work do not criticize or doubt his conclusions with respect to his understanding of Bullinger.

Perhaps someone out there in blogosphere has read widely in Bullinger and can shed some light on whether Burrows’ understanding of Bullinger is closer to the mark than Fesko’s? I hope to find the time to check all the quotations that Fesko makes to Bullinger and then, in due course, put up some posts for all to consider. Let us let Bullinger speak for himself. As many misunderstand Zwingli with respect to the Lord’s Supper so I humbly think that Fesko has misunderstood Bullinger. Furthermore, referring to the final comment in Fesko’s article, I wonder if Calvin’s view re union with Christ vis-à-vis justification and sanctification is so close to that of Bullinger that Calvin must have been influenced by Bullinger’s work.

My gut feeling is that Bullinger's view supports the approach of Mike Bird who refers to incorporated righteousness in The Saving Righteousness of God (Wipf & Stock, 2007).

Faith-based Justification and Works-based Justification Juxtaposed in Bullinger?

The following quotation from Bullinger’s Compendium might give the impression that Bullinger juxtaposes a faith-based justification with a works-based justification. It certainly may appear that way. The quotation is taken from that section of the Compendium that Bullinger entitles “That God has bound man to him, unto salvation and perpetual worship.” In this quotation Bullinger links the covenant with God with justification:

“For religion seemeth not so much to have her name of reading as of binding. And we are bound unto God, and joined in league through his free mercy (as has been said) by faith. Therefore the covenant of God and true religion are all one. And they are religious, which being (con)federates joined in league with God, do cleave unto his word and honor and serve him despising all other things.”
(Heinrich Bullinger, Common Places of the Christian Religion, translated by J. Stockwood (London: 1572), p43)

Bullinger and Sanctification vis-à-vis Justification

Mark Burrows has written an oft cited article: “‘Christus intra nos Vivens’, The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol 98 (1987), pp48-69. In this article Burrows concludes that Bullinger sees a very close link between sanctification and justification.

As far as I am aware, there has yet to be a detailed study of the works of Bullinger to either sustain this conclusion or otherwise.

The following quotation from The Decades 3.vi might be a starting point. It occurs in a section where Bullinger discusses circumcision:

“Moreover, circumcision did signify and testify that God Almighty, of his mere grace and goodness, is joined with an indissoluble bond of covenant unto us men, whom his will is first to sanctify, then to justify, and lastly to enrich with all heavenly treasures through Christ our Lord and reconciler.” (Parker Edition p174)

The Latin is:

Deinde significabat, imo et attestabatur circuncisio deum omnipotentem ex mera gratia et bonitate cohaerere indissolubili foederis nexu cum hominibus, quos velit sanctificatos iustificare omnibusque coelestibus donis locupletare per Christum. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p348)

The modern German translation is:

Zweitens bedeutete, ja bezeugte di Beschneidung auch, dass der allmächtige Gott aus lauter Gnade und Güte durch ein unzertrennliches Band mit den Menschen verbunden ist. Diese möchte er heiligen, gerecht machen und durch Christus mit allen himmlischen Gaben bereichern. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p10)

Bullinger and Justification as the Hinge of Evangelical Doctrine

In The Decades 4.i Bullinger writes: “And although I oftener than once handled this argument in these sermons of mine; yet because it is the hook whereupon the hinge of the evangelical doctrine (which is the door to Christ) doth hang and that this doctrine (to wit, that Christ is received by faith, and not by works) is of many men very greatly resisted; I will for the declaration and confirmation sake thereof, produce here two places only, but such as be apparent enough and evident to prove and confirm it by: the one out of the gospel of Christ our Lord, the other out of Paul’s epistles.” (Parker Edition p37 there is an explanation that the words in brackets are not in the original Latin).

The Latin version is:

Et quamvis hoc argumentum tractaverim semel et iterum in hisce nostris sermonibus, quia tamen in eo volvitur cardo doctrinae evangelicae et hoc dogma (nempe fide, non operibus recipe Christum) a multis acerrime oppugnatur, duos tantum locos, sed maxime illustres pro eius declaratione et confrimatione adducam, alterum quidem ex evangelio Christi domini, alterum ex epistolis sancti Pauli.
(Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p512)

One might compare what Bullinger wrote with what Calvin wrote in the Institutes at 3.11.1 which deals with the “Place and meaning of the doctrine of justification”:

“And we must so discuss them as to bear in mind that this is the main hinge on which religion turns, so that we may devote the greater attention and care to it” (Battles translation).

The Latin version is:

Et ita discutienda ut meminerimus praecipuum esse sustinendae religionis cardinem: quo maiorem attentionem curamque afferamus.

Several lines earlier in this sermon 4.i of The Decades Bullinger writes:

“But the promise is received by faith, and not by works: therefore the gospel, and Christ in the gospel, are received by faith. For we must diligently distinguish between the precepts and the promises. The promises are received by faith: the precepts are accomplished by works.” (Parker Edition, p36)

The Latin version is:

Caeterum promissio fide, non operibus recipitur, ideoque evangelium et in evangelio Christus fide recipitur. Etenim distinguendum erit diligenter inter praecepta et promissiones. Nam hae recipiuntur fide, illa perficiuntur operibus.
(Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p511)

The following are the recent German translations (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006) of the same sections.

“Und obwohl ich dies in diesen meinem Predigten schon das eine oder andere Mal behandelt habe, möchte ich dennoch nur zwei, aber zwei überaus deutliche Schriftstellen zur Erklärung und Bekräftigung anführen, weil darin der Kern der Lehre des Evangeliums liegt und dieser Glaubenssatz – dass Christus durch den Glauben und nicht durch Werke empfangen wird – von vielen sehr heftig bekämpt wird: eine Stelle aus dem Evangelium Christi, des Herrn, und eine aus den Briefen des heiligen Paulus.”

“Diese Verheißung wird aber nicht durch Werke, sondern im Glauben empfangen, deshalb wird das Evangelium – und im Evangelium Christus – im Glauben empfangen. Es ist nämlich sorgfältig zwischen den Geboten und Verheiβungen zu unterschieden, denn diese werden im Glauben, jene durch Werke empfangen.”