A careful comparison between Olevianus and Bullinger with respect to the covenant would be a good exercise to do – especially their use and understanding of the terms, foedus, testamentum and pactum. Time permitting, I would like to have a go at doing this.
Bullinger often refers to union with Christ. This for him is the context of a restored relationship with God. The message of the covenant is God “pouring Himself” into a covenant relationship with the elect. Thus Bullinger emphaizes the two natures in Christ as “in Christ” we are joined in union with God. Bullinger also points out the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.
The following is quoted from Lyle D. Bierma’s book The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. These quotations illustrate the importance of union with Christ for Olevianus.
“But the mystical union plays a far more significant role when Olevianus speaks of covenant in the broader sense, ie, as actual reconciliation between God and believers. Here union with Christ is the vital link in the covenant between out faith, on the one hand, and God’s promises, on the other. Only through faith are we incorporated into Christ and only through that incorporation are we accepted as chidlren of God and coheirs with Christ. Furthermore, it is only as we are truly engrafted into Christ through faith that we experience the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of the imago dei (true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) within us. As Mediator of the reconciliation or covenant between God and us, then, Christ is the channel through which god’s favor flows, and we possess that favor only insofar as we possess Christ Himself. It is in union with Him that the terms of the covenant set down in the Creed are put into effect.”
“Christ is the link between the Father and us, and the Holy Spirit is the link between us and Christ. Or as Olevianus himself puts it, ‘God unites Himself to us with an indissoluble bond in Christ our Head through the fetter of the Holy Spirit.’ What we really have in this covenant is communion with the entire Trinity.”
“The very possibility of the work of Christ, however, rested on an even deeper foundation, the person of Christ. Time and again Olevianus stresses that the fundament und grundt of the priesthood of Christ – and thus of the eternal covenant between God and us – is comprehended in the person of Christ, more particularly in the union of natures in that person. The covenant of grace or union between God and us is grounded first and foremost in Immanuel, the highest expression of the divine and human in union. Without this union there is no true Christ, and without this Christ there is no true covenant or reconciliation with God. This hypostatic union, moreover, must be preserved into all eternity if our covenant of reconciliation with God is to remain intact.”
Some brief comments about these quotations from Bierma:
1. Bierma cites from Vester Grundt – “Quotquot enim vere Christo per fidem sumus insiti, praeter illud beneficium remissionis…”
2. It is interesting that Bierma has identified Olevinus’ use of “incorporation into Christ.” I hope to search the writings of Bulligner to see if Bullinger might have also referred to “incorporation into Christ.” Bullinger certainly emphasized the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness. But if Bierma has correctly understood Olevianus then we might see here something similar to the view of Michael Bird re “incorporated righteousness” that he expounds in his The Saving Righteousness of God.
3. Olevianus emphasizes Christ’s role of Mediator of the covenant.
4. Olevianus’ views on the two natures of Christ appear to be very similar to what Bullinger expounded in De testamento.
Showing posts with label Union with Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Union with Christ. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)