Some Discussion Over at the Heidelblog . . .

Posted on by

I’ve been having some “fun” over at the Heidelblog:

Olevianus on the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

Just follow the comment meta for a bit, you’ll come to it. I don’t know if I would really call this “fun” 😉 .

9 thoughts on “Some Discussion Over at the Heidelblog . . .”

  1. Interesting discussion. I think the last couple of comments where my favorite though. The idea of cutting through the language to get to the application…that’s good. It’s hard to shift a paradigm.

  2. Hi Bobby,

    I must confess I’m not tracking the conversation well. There are too many big words and too much history of which I’m unaware.

    But I was hoping to clarify a couple points.

    1. When you speak of “Thomism” it is in reference to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas?

    If this is so, then I can understand how it might be alarming if Federal theology is heavily influenced by his teaching as I recently read that Aquinas was quite successful at marrying Aristotle’s ideas with the teachings of the RCC. The church loved it so much it forbade anyone to disagree with Aquinas’s perspective concerning physics and astronomy. While that might not be a reason in itself to reject “Thomism”, I do feel it would warrant extreme caution because Aristotle did not recognize the true God as Creator which would demand all of his work be scrutinized with care before Christians accept any of it.

    2. Concerning the apparent discrepancy between Christ the Elect and those whom He has chosen (who also are called “the elect”).

    I stuck in a couple of verses from Isaiah for reference.

    Isaiah 42:1 Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; My Elect, in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit on Him; He shall bring out judgment to the nations.

    Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have even entitled you. I have named you, though you have not known me.

    So, Christ is THE Elect in 42:1….right? And the entitlement (or right to be called “elect”) is bestowed for Christ’s sake 45:4.

    Following this, it is not necessarily errant to call believers “elect”, but it is only because Christ is first the Elect of the Father and we have in turn been identified as having been chosen (elected) by Christ?

    I also wonder if this order of election is revealed in the Gospels in such passages as:

    Mat 12:18 “Behold My Child whom I have chosen; My Beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit on Him, and He shall declare judgment to the nations.

    and then, Jesus said to His friends:

    John 15:16 You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you and ordained you that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatever you shall ask of the Father in My name, He may give it to you.

    I guess what I’m trying to determine is that your concern with the Federal perspective is that it puts such strong emphasis on the second election (the redeemed) that the primary Election ( of Christ) becomes obscured?

    And it’s the framework of the theology itself that causes the distortion even though most Federal folks probably do acknowledge that Christ is THE primary Elect and they would be genuinely horrified that anyone would think they are man centered in their belief?

    Did I at least get that part right?

  3. It is hard, Ten Cent, it was time for me to leave the hornets nest I stirred 🙂 .

  4. Thomism, Heather, is the root problem. Classic Calvinism is thoroughly rooted in the Thomistic framework, thus their problems with thinking through “different lenses.”

    Thomism believes that God is a “substance” and that grace is a “quality.” Which means that they think that God is a thing and that salvation is a “stuff.” Although they would never say it like that. In other words, if God is a thing, then to try to use that conceptual matter with a God who is actuall 3-in-1 and persons in relation morphes God into something He’s not. To think of grace as a quality and “stuff” (literally, think of how Roman Catholic’s think of grace, that it can be received, literally through eucharist [physically]) produces the idea that folks can grab onto it an cooperate with it like “play-doh” 😉 (they can manage it, with the “Spirit’s help of course”).

    As far as election, no, they don’t believe in what you call the “first election.” They only hold to your “second election.” So this is the huge failure I’m trying to highlight with that theology. It’s not “Christ-centered” that way at all. Yet that cannnot grasp what I’m getting at; even their view of election is grounded in ‘us’ to begin with!

    Everything I just communicated is very crudely put, but hopefully understandable.

  5. Hm. I think I understand. Maybe.

    That RCC belief in grace as a thing that can be accessed via bread and wine sounds like the concept that was being put forth by the Lutheran guy I was talking with. So, traditional Reformed sorts believe this also? Man, I’m ignorant.

    When you feel up to it, would you mind revisiting that paragraph about God and grace and salvation and give me the Evangelical Calvinistic response so I have a way to compare the two views?

    The concept of Christ being the Elect isn’t even on the Federal framework radar screen? What do they do with the verses in Isaiah that name Him as such?

    BTW, is it errant to view God’s “chosen” people as being a “second election” within the bounds of the Son’s favored position? I try to not make too much of the whole election thing as it really messed me up before. But, the language is in the NT, so I figured I’d ask.

    No hurry.

  7. Heather,

    Let me respond to your questions via a post sometime. In short, the trad Calv. does not hold to the Lutheran view of the eucharist — in fact this was a major point of contention between Luther, Calvin, and some of the Swiss (Zwingli) approaches — these three represent the 3 differing views that we have today.

    But let me get back to y0ur questions when I get the chance.

  8. Yeah, not really . . . thanks.

    I just read how Scott responded to me, I think he has failed to appreciate the Barthian/Torrancean critique of the trad Calv. usage of the analogia entis — given his response on his “ontological shift.” I don’t think the trads (or really orthodox) quite shifted, but his response would make sense given his view that there is continuity between Calvin and the “Orthodox.”

Comments are closed.