Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: theology
-
Definitions in Philosophy and Theology
I started this post just reviewing patristic quotes of immutability, but as I’ve thought through the idea, I think that I need to review definitions of some basic words used in theology and philosophy, and really think through some implications. I’ve decided this post should be split into multiple posts. I should probably also re-write a lot of this and try to publish it somewhere, and actually make some income off of my thoughts [which, if you do think this deserves some level of monetary support, please do donate!!]. Regardless–
(more…) -
A Summary of How Theologians Describe God
The works of God with respect to Himself and His creatures 1:
1. Immanent/Internal Works (ad intra)
- B. Extrinsic 4
2. Transient/External Works (ad extra) 9
- A. Creation
- B. Providence (in later theology) / Governance (in early theology)
- Extraordinary/Special providence (WCF 5.3)
- C. Redemption
Some Notes:
- In the end, all theological logic is nominal. I don’t think we can know what this parsing out actually refers to in se (in itself) in God. But I think the parsing out of concepts helps us understand how to categorize our little ectypal revelation about God.
↩︎ - Intrinsic works remain within and refer to God.
↩︎ - NECESSARY works are those that are who God is. Of His Immanent works, this includes intrinsic works of His being and Persons. UNNECESSARY works are things that are not necessitated by who God is but are accidental to His nature. Of His immanent works, this includes the extrinsic works. All of His transient works are also unnecessary (given the definition of unnecessary).
↩︎ - Extrinsic works remain within but refer to things outside of God.
↩︎ - Decrees – In early Reformed work ‘providence’ was the purposing of how the decrees would be carried out. It was called the, “parent of predestination” – Bavinck.
↩︎ - I take a via media in my ordering of the decrees between the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions by placing permission of the fall after creation, but glorification prior to all.
↩︎ - I also place the covenant of redemption within the logical ordering of the decrees. In the various charts I’ve studies of Reformed/patristic theologies, I’ve yet to find one that describes where this covenantal concept fits within the immanent works of God.
↩︎ - There is a debate among theologians regarding the nature of the decree as how to view Christ’s role in Redemption—Christ as fideiussor or Christ as exprommisor.
“The Son’s sponsio was not an expromissio (surety) [disagreeing with Berkhof], such that the guilt of sin was transferred without further ado from the elect to the Son and they had already become guiltfree through the pact itself. Rather it was a real fideiussio (bail), a guarantee which was already effective from the start, even before the Son, in view of this merit of his in the future, had fulfilled his vow by completing the work of redemption.” -Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 380
ie. in Heppe’s view Christ said, “I agree to bail them out once they sin, with foresight of my work.” But in Berkhof’s view, Christ said, “I agree to undertake their debt now.”
Sponsio, “An engagement to pay a certain sum of money to the successful party in a cause.” -Black’s Law Dictionary
Surety, “A person who binds himself for the payment of a sum of money or for the performance of something else, for another, who is already bound for the same. A surety differs from a guarantor, and the latter [guarantor] cannot be sued until after a suit against the principal. 2. The surety differs from bail in this, that the latter [bail] actually has, or is by law presumed to have, the custody of his principal, while the former [surety] has no control over him. The bail may surrender his principal in discharge of his obligation; the surety cannot be discharged by surrender.”
↩︎ - Transient/External works involve the execution of the decree(s) and are always related to the economic Trinity and the doctrine of inseperable operations, “opera ad extra trinitatis indivisa sunt”. ↩︎
-
Atonement Thoughts
How did Christ atone for His People?Protestant Theologians debate whether it was in an Equivalent or Exact Sense:Equivalent:“Not indefinite as to the duration, still…equivalent as to the value on account of the Person suffering.” -TurretinExact:“Christ “made satisfaction by undergoing the same punishment…they themselves were bound to undergo…essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accident of duration and the like.” -Owen, quoted in “He Died for Me” p. 114.Unsure:“He was to suffer what we were to suffer, if not the exact, every way the same, yet the equivalent, that which was sufficient to Christ’s ends” -Thomas Manton, quoted in “He Died for Me” p. 118. -
An Attempt at a Tertium Quid in the Lapsarian Debate
The age-old Post-Reformation debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism is useful at times, and, personally, I have flip-flopped between both. At this time, though, I have developed what I think is somewhere between the two of them. You internet theologians let me know what you think:
Works of God with Respect to Himself and Creatures
I. Immanent/Internal (ad intra)
A. Intrinsic (Remain within God)
i. of His Being
ii. of His Persons
B. Extrinsic (Go outside of God)
i. Decrees, “the counsel of His will” (in older theology providence is the purposing of how the decrees will be carried out)
a. To be glorified by vessels of glory & wrath
b. To Create
c. To Permit the Fall
d. To Redeem the Elect [ie covenant of redemption & the tertium quid]
II. Transient/External (ad extra) [execution of the decree]
A. Creation
B. Providence (in later theology) or Governance (early)
C. Redemption
Sources:
A compilation of Heinrich Heppe, Herman Bavinck, Wilhelmus á Brakel, and Petrus van MastrichtFootnotes:
i. The decrees. As Bavinck says, “The means are all subordinate to the ultimate goal, but they are not for that reason subordinate to each other. Creation is not just a means for the attainment of the fall, nor is the fall only a means for the attainment of grace and perseverance…Twisse already noted: ‘These elements are not just subordinated to each other, but are also related coordinately.’” -Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p. 390. -
Eternal Functional Subordination…Continued
Debates in the Reformed circles of the Church range from petty to vicious to important, and I have no interest in jumping into unnecessary argumentation. But, I think the debate over whether Jesus is eternally, but functionally, subordinate to the Father in the Triune Godhead is an important one. The debate itself is basically over, but its after-effects linger.
That said, I just want to contribute one additional piece of information that is best used in contradiction to the view that Jesus is eternally subordinate. It comes from that pious minister, Wilhelmus à Brakel, who says,
When Christ acknowledges the Father to be greater than He (John 14:28), the reference is not to His divinity, for as such He is equal to the Father (Phil. 2:6) and one with the Father (1 John 5:7). This has reference to His office as Mediator, in respect to which the Father calls Him His Servant (Isa. 53:11)
Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christians Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, p. 174.This quote is helpful in that it forces us to consider the manner in which God’s decrees relate to His Being, as well as to the relation of the Persons. Does God’s eternal decree to save people through Jesus entail that Jesus is eternally functionally subordinate to the Father? The problem with this concept is that it entails eternal dependency. A subordinate, even a subordinate in only a functional sense, entails dependence. If two CEOs of the same business work with equal power in their offices, but legally CEO #2 must always execute the plans of CEO #1, then CEO #2 must rely upon CEO #1. But in the Godhead there can be no “reliance” of one Person upon the Other. And the decree to be a Mediator does not make the Son functionally subordinate because it does not make the Son eternally dependent. á Brakel later says,
Dependency is a reality in men, but not in God. The Son has life in Himself as the Father has life in Himself (John 5:26). The attribute of eternity excludes all possibility of dependency. In the execution of the covenant of grace each Person operates according to the manner of His existence. Thus, the Father’s operation proceeds from Himself, the Son’s from the Father, and the Holy Spirit’s from the Father and the Son–all of which occur without dependency as this would suggest imperfection.
Functional subordiantion is indeed an argument in favor of dependency, and á Brakel’s argument thoroughly contradicts it. In executing the Covenant, each Person “operates according to the manner of His existence”, i.e. without dependence upon the manner of the other Person’s existence. He reasons later that since the Son is begotten, the Son may only operate as the begotten-One. This does not entail that He is subordinated to the Father, but only explains the mode of His existence. So, the concept of eternal, though functional, subordination puts the cart ahead of the horse. It seems like an unreasonable conflation of God’s immanent decrees with His external acts or extrinsic decrees. While there is obviously a relation between the economic work of God to the objective reality of God, the correspondence is not one-to-one, but of analogy. The Son is not objectively, eternally, subordinated to the Father. Instead, it is best to confess what Paul confessed, that,
Though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Philippians 2:6-7In my paraphrase: Though Jesus was everlastingly God, equal in worth and power and dignity to the Father, He did not consider that equality something to be clung to greedily, but He veiled His glorious attributes and took on tangible, actual servant-hood at a particular point in time, namely when He became a human. God did not cease to be God, but willingly veiled His everlasting power by becoming a man. So too, we should humble ourselves for the sake of others.
-
The Necessity And Limits Of The Imitation Of Christ (2)
The Necessity And Limits Of The Imitation Of Christ (2)
Big debate in the Reformed world. Good summary of what it means to imitate Christ.