Above you see Paul Nimmo on the left and Bill Werpehowski on the right during the plenary discussion

On day two of the Barth Conference we were treated to two fine lectures and responses.  The first lecture of the day was given by William Werpehowski of Villanova University and was on just war theory.  A self-professed "Catholic Barthian," Professor Werpehowski set forth Barth's doctrine of just war.  He notes how it appears to some that Barth has fallen away from the pacifistic trend of his theology.  Barth does allow for just war under certain circumstances, which resonates with some Catholic ethicists.   The second lecture was by David Haddorff of St. John’s University, and spoke about Barth's views on democracy.  He makes clear that Barth believed in democracy as it falls best in line with biblical teaching.  In this way then the church may serve, by its doctrine of justification, as a witness to the freedom we ought to have politically in democracy.  The respondent, Todd Cioffi, made an interesting point.  He argues that Barth says that democracy is to be preferred and pushed for by the church because it allows the church the freedom to declare the doctrine of justification freely, not that the doctrine itself leads to a democratic state. 

But the highlight of the whole conference came on Wednesday morning with the lecture of Paul Nimmo.  Finally, this was theological ethics through and through.  The lecture was on the ontology of ethics in the theology of Karl Barth.  Nimmo set forth how the being of God in action sets the theological ontology for a Christian ethic.  While I disagree with Nimmo on core theological issues, this was Barthian theology done well.  It was faithful to Barth, rich in theological content, and intellectually stimulating.  I think that in Dr. Nimmo we have an up and coming premiere Barth theologian.  He is young, sharp, eloquent, and obviously a good mind.  He may be the next T.F. Torrance.  And the fact that he teaches at New College makes that possibility all the more attractive.  Folks, look for anything and everything this guys writes - and read it!  He will set many Barthian theological trends to come.

OK, so what about the conference as a whole?  Well, for what they're worth, here are some of my thoughts. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, I remain unconvinced that many of the discussions we had were really even warranted.  Is it really the call of Christian theologians to attempt to propose new forms of politics, economics, etc?  I'm not persuaded that it is.

This was, after all, supposed to be a conference on ethics.  Certainly there is an ethical dimension to politics and economics, but notice what was missing.  There were no lectures, really, on personal ethics.  Nothing on death and dying issues, nothing on sexual ethics, nothing on marriage, and nothing on keeping the Sabbath day holy.  Those topics would have been much more useful than utopian economic proposals. 

Speaking of which, also taking place that week was George Hunsinger's special political work, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.  This at times caused some problems.  For one, there was a lecturer scheduled at Nassau Presbyterian Church for the NRCAT at the same as one for the Barth conference.  Hunsinger, also, I suppose was so busy with the NRCAT conference that he was unable to attend the discussion groups for the Barth Conference.  He was in my group, so I was disappointed not to have that time to interact with him. 

Also, rather than having respondents, I would have preferred more lectures.  This conference was not as full as last years.  Thus, in my opinion, it was not nearly as good.

Next year's conference is on Barth and Religion and the Religions.  This sounds, already, like a great event.  I look forward to being there again!

In a recent post on his home blog, Pete Enns had this to say:

Frankly, I am bit perplexed, even concerned (theologically), about this criticism. If we understand the word “essential” to mean “a property without which something ceases being what it is,” Christ ceases being who he is if either element is subordinated. It is essential that Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior, be both divine and human. So, too, Scripture is not simply “contingently human”(precisely what that means is not clear to me at any rate) but essentially so, i.e., there is no Scripture apart from the human—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—words that the Spirit inspired biblical writers to write. To put it another way, we are not required to consider how to place one over the other, but to accept that they co-exist (if I may speak this way for sake of discussion) by God’s wise and gracious decree.

The trouble with this doctrine of Christ and Scripture is that it is thoroughly Barthian.  That is to say, it is actualistic.  The divine nature (of either Christ or Scripture) is dependent upon the human nature for its existence.  Or, as Barth would say, God's being is in his act.  The reason why the Reformed made the essential/contingent distinction is to protect the aseity of God.  If you say that the two natures are equally ultimate, then God in some way becomes dependent upon the creature. 

Here orthodox theology speaks about the relation between enhypostasis and anhypostasis.  Anhypostasis means that the humanity of Christ had no personality of its own.  Its not like Jesus was walking around as a perfectly normal human being and one day he is adopted by God to be the vehicle through which He will redeem the world (this was to protect against the heresy of adoptionism).  Enhypostasis taught Jesus Christ received his personhood by virtue of the person of the eternal Logos. (for more on this see this excellent article by Dr. Lane G. Tipton).  After all, remember the Chalcedonian formulation: he is two natures in one person.  If you say that the human nature was a person and the divine nature was a person then you would have two persons (and that was the heresy known as Nestorianism).  Therefore, the person of the union is provided for by the divine nature. 

One caveat.  Some ancient theologians supposedly argued that the person of Jesus Christ arose by virtue of the union of the two natures.  But this is by far worse.  It would then deny personhood to BOTH natures.  And if you deny personhood to the Logos, then you are now guilty of a trinitarian heresy as well!  Now we know why the Reformed scholastics were so meticulous.  Screw up on doctrine, and you are bound to screw up many more.

So, this is why it is important to maintain the priority of the divine nature in the hypostatic union.  And this is why we must maintain the priority of the divine authorship in our doctrine of Scripture.  If you are going to draw an analogy between the incarnation and Scripture, you'd better be sure you have an orthodox doctrine of the incarnation to begin with. 

Now, to be sure, when a skeptic makes such excuses for dismissing the claims of Christianity I myself become somewhat skeptical – skeptical of the skeptics. It leads me to believe that there is something deeper doing one here in the mind and heart of the unbeliever. And, to be sure, there is. After all, as Paul tells us in Romans 1, all men know God because God has made himself clearly known to them. In fact, says Paul, so clearly has God made himself know that unbelievers are rendered without excuse for their unbelief.

Yet, we must still admit, there's something not quite right when Christians act nasty, mean, or commit terrible public sins. How many Christians have hurt the cause of the gospel because of their scandalous sin, or because of a rude word to an unbeliever?

That said, however, such things should not surprise. After all, the church – it has been rightly stated – is not a hotel for saints, but a hospital for sinners. To site Martin Luther's famous maxim, the Christian is simuli justus et peccator: at the same time justified and a sinner. And this is the amzing thing about grace, about the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. As Paul says, God came to justify the ungodly (Romans 4:5). And that just it, isn't it. He didn't come to justify godly people. After all, godly people don't need justifying. He didn't wait for us to get our act together to justify us. No, he entered into our lives when we were sinners, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. (Romans 5:8). So, in this way then be do not have to become sanctified before be become justified. Which is a great relief, isn't it? If we had to wait until we became actually righteous before be could be justified, we'd be waiting an awful long time! In fact, we'd be waiting for ever.

So, how then can it be that we can be justified without actually be righteous? Well, the answer is quite simple: imputation. Christ's righteous is imputed to us. Christ was confronted with the Law of God, he was place under the original covenant of works under which Adam was place and which Adam failed. But Jesus, as the second and last Adam, obeyed the covenant perfectly. He humbled himself and was obedient; obedient unto death, even the death of a cross (Philippians 2:2-8). And so, that perfect obedience is imputed to us, it is transfer over to us by faith alone. We we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved, we are saved because Christ's righteousness has become my righteousness. Although it always remains an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not of me or in me. It is never my own inherent righteousness; but always and only Christ's righteousness which saves me. In and of myself I still remain a sinner. Yes, I have a new, regenerated heart and an illuminated mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. But I still have indwelling sin, and still carry around with me the old man, the old nature; what Paul called this body of death (Romans 7:24). Therefore, even after being regenerated, there is nothing in me which may merit or deserve justification. Being declared righteous in the sight of God remains always and exclusively on the basis of Christ's merit and righteousness imputed to me by faith alone apart from my own works of the Law.

Potential Pitfall of Justification by Faith Alone

This doctrine make Rome extremely uneasy as it was being developed by the early Reformers. Then again, that is nothing new. The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone has always made people with a legalistic bent nervous. Even in Paul's day he had to defend against misunderstanding among his Judiazing opponents. In two places, in Romans 6 and in Galatians 3 and then again in 5, Paul anticipates the nervous objections of his theological opponents. He says, “so, does this doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law mean that we can go on living a sinful life and in any way we please”?

In fact, I would say that this nervous reaction is a good sign that what you are preaching is the true gospel. The true gospel, the true good news that God justifies the ungodly, ought to solicit this kind of response from unbelievers. This is how you know you've preached the right gospel. There ought to be kind of outcry. Where ever the doctrine of free grace has been preached, legalists have responded – often times angrily – that this means it doesn't matter how we live our lives. Rome used to call this Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone “Legal Fiction”. The idea being communicated was that righteousness was something that amounted to an exchange which to place “over our heads”, as it were, which never touched us in the here and now of our lives. They charges Protestants with anti-nomianism saying that they didn't care how Christians lived here on earth.

The Solutions to the Potential Pitfalls

So, Luther's maxim, as true as it was and is, didn't go far enough to satisfy the Catholic theologians. Rome wanted something real, substantial, a real righteousness they could see and touch and experience. Otherwise, they would just continue to level the charge of “legal fiction” at Protestants. And, unfortunately, some Protestants gave the Catholics what they wanted. For instance, a Lutheran theologian by the name of Osiander, taught a real participation in the righteousness of Christ. He said that when believers are saved they are so united to Christ that they actually share in the righteousness which he had in his divine nature. That is to say, the believer's righteousness was actually God's divine righteous nature being infused into them. This conveniently did away with the idea of imputation – and, unfortunately, with that the who idea of Reformation.

The spirit of Osiander, however, did not die with the man. To day you can find similar formulation in even Reformed churches. Former PCA pastor, Rick Lusk (a self professed Federal Visionist) teaches that in union with Christ we are so joined to Christ that we literally one with him such that imputation of his righteousness to me is not needed. His righteousness is not imputed to me, because I have come to partake in his righteous nature. In other circles, a theologian by the name of Thomas Torrance self consciously rejects the idea of imputation as something that transfers “above and outside of us” and insists that the way we just Christ's righteousness is by becoming one with him in the incarnation in which we are taken up in to the life of God.

What all these views have in come is what is called the doctrine of “theosis” or divinization. That is, the process in which God's nature is poured in our nature. Where the creator and creature become confused and the clear line of division is obliterated.

This is where Calvin comes in so helpfully. For he answered Rome's accusations of a legal fiction, on the one hand, and Osiander's mixing of the human and divine on the other. And he did so with his doctrine of union with Christ and the two fold benefit of that union. In other words, to put it simply, by our union with Christ which comes by faith and through the work of the Holy Spirit, we receive both justification and sanctification. We get justification because by faith Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (not infused). This avoided the confusion of mixture of human and divine natures. But we also get sanctification as well. We get Christ's ongoing grace and strength which he gives to his people through his Spirit. So, one a sinner become justified in Christ, so he will also become sanctified as well. This answered Rome's objection of a “legal fiction” and anti-nomianism.

So, this why when Paul answers the objections that say “well, since we are justified by faith alone apart from works of the law, does that mean that we can go on sinning”, he does so with such vehemence. He say “may it never be!”, “certainly not!”, “God forbid!” This is because Paul knows full well that that Jesus Christ is not only our righteousness, but our holiness as well (1 Cor. 1:30). He knows that if we are united to Christ by faith, we have at least two benefits from this union. One the one hand we have the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us and on that basis alone are be declared just; and on the other we have the grace of Christ's spirit working in our hearts so that we may daily die to sin and live to holiness. So, there is no such thing as a Christian who is justified but not also sanctified. If you claim to be in Christ, if you claim to be saved, but you live like the devil then there is something not right here.

Now, that is not to say that you won't slip up from time to time. That is not to say that on occasion you will say or do the wrong thing at the wrong time. And in the process offend your unbelieving friend, neighbor, or co-worker. But it does mean that when you do do wrong, you will experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your hearts. You will shout in anguish with Paul, “I don't do what I want to do, I do what I don't want to do, what a wretched man that I am!”

But, you will also have the comfort of the apostle Paul as well. That while you know full well you are peccator, you are driven time and again as you recognize and now your sin, that you are also justus. As Paul shouts “what a wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death”, he also yells in jubulant chorus, “praise be to God, through Jesus Christ my Lord! For now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!”