Saturday, June 16, 2012

Thesis 8, "Evangelical Calvinism endorses a supralapsarian Christology which emphasizes the doctrine of the primacy of Christ

Here is Thesis 8, Evangelical Calvinism endorses a supralapsarian Christology which emphasizes the doctrine of the primacy of Christ. [this version is absent the footnotes---this thesis is getting at the doctrine of pre-destination] [I am pretty busy today, so hopefully I will be able to get all of you guys that link to my paypal account so you can order the book through me ... I have a feeling that won't be until tomorrow now] [Myk and I co-wrote the chapter this is taken from, which is 15 in the book]

Evangelical Calvinism endorses a supralapsarian Christology which emphasizes the doctrine of the primacy of Christ. As a direct result of thesis 5 and its concomitant doctrine of God, Evangelical Calvinists subscribe to a broadly conceived supralapsarian Christology along the lines of that famously propounded by John Duns Scotus. That is to say that, Evangelical Calvinists embrace the idea that who God is for us in Christ is grounded in the pre-temporal reality of his choice to be for us apart from and prior to the “Fall” or even the creation itself. This, theo-logically coheres with the Evangelical Calvinist conception of God’s life being shaped by who he is as love, and thus both chron-ologically and logically places his love and his self-determining freedom as the primary mode of God’s life; and thus the basis from which he acts, even in wrath. As such an Evangelical Calvinist may confidently assert that: “There is no wrath of God that is not first experienced as the love of God for you.”

As one of us has argued elsewhere: “The sine qua non of the Scotistic thesis is that the predestination of Christ took place in an instant which was logically prior to the prevision of sin as absolutum futurum. That is, the existence of Christ was not contingent on the fall as foreseen through the scientia visionis.” It is through this matrix that Evangelical Calvinists can be said to hold to a “supralapsarian Christology,” that is that we believe in God’s primacy over all of creation; and thus his choice to be for us is in Christ is not contingent upon sin, but instead it is the result of the overflow of who he is as the God for the other—God is Love!

The election of the eternal Son for us that occurs pre-temporally becomes temporally externalized in the Incarnation of Christ, and ultimately finds its resounding crescendo in being actualized through the cross-work of Christ, exemplifying that God’s life of over-flowing love is in fact cruciform in shape as it is revealed within the conditions of a post-lapsarian world.

In salvation God accomplishes multiple things but perhaps four may be pointed out here: 1) God’s glory is revealed; 2) God’s salvation is accomplished, 3) God’s judgment is made manifest, and 4) God’s damnation of the sinner outside of Christ is realized. All four of these components find their extrinsic locus in the person of Christ as the primary exemplar and mediator of God’s life for humanity. Each of these—God’s glory, salvation, judgment, and damnation—take on significance as Jesus’ God-shaped humanity brings God and humans together in himself.

The Father is glorified through the Son’s loving submission as the scapegoat, sacrifice, and representative for fallen humanity; and through this ultimate act of the obedient love of the Son, the Father brings reconciliation (salvation) to humanity as Christ enters into the wilderness of humanity’s sin, bears the weight of that sin in his “being” for us; and thus suffers the tragic damnation that rightfully belonged to sinful humanity. Through this mediation of life for life (substitution), Christ not only pays the penalty for sin; but as a corollary with who he is as love, he reconciles humanity’s non-being with his resurrected being of life and thus brought God and humanity together in a spiritual union such that reconciled and adopted sinners may now experience the love of the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Abba, our Father, and our worship, by the Holy Spirit, may be acceptable to God.

Supralapsarian Christology, correctly understood, does not reflect an Amyraldian, or a hypothetical universalism; but rather an actualized universal atonement which recreates humanity through Christ’s humanity, and provides salvation for all who will believe through Spirit generated, Christic formed faith. A purview that genuinely can claim to be “Christ-conditioned.” [Myk Habets and Bobby Grow eds., Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church, (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 438-39.

5 comments:

  1. Really appreciate the clarity of this explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting. This is a good explanation of a particular supralapsarianism. I like it, even though I can't bring myself to occupy any position in the spectrum of lapsarianism, because I don't believe in the basic framework. I don't have a determinist doctrine of election, let alone a twofold one. And I have never been trained, as a Lutheran, to think of the Christ and Adam problem as determinant of the incarnation. (It's a metaphor, and a very minor one as Christological tropes go!) Which knocks out the two major motivations behind a notion that Christ, as God's ultimate salvation, must relate as the answer to the Fall, and must therefore have been planned in either before or after it. Also, I have no supersessionist tendencies that would tempt me to jump clean over the entire OT history of God's faithfulness. The incarnation is radically continuous with that faithfulness; only the resulting political situations were not. Which God does not respect, any more than God chooses between Calvinists and Lutherans. ;)

    And yet, if I had to take a position here, it would be supralapsarian.

    Having just successfully convinced you what kind of anti-Calvinist heretic I am, here's why I have to respect your position. I do not hold that God changes in any way who God is with respect to the creature. God acts in freedom, in new ways across time as the dynamic creation changes, but the actions in time are not essentially different even if they are actually unique. God's relationship to creation is defined by the fact that God is its Creator, who pronounces it good and acts toward it in love. Therefore even if I could be lapsarian in some sense, I'd have to be supralapsarian; to be infra suggests too much that a new action is a new attitude of God, such that God changes who God is with respect to the creature. It implies that God can be unfaithful, that a new action of faithfulness can contradict the old. It is perfectly reasonable to me to say that Christ presents God in revelation as God has always been, and unreasonable to say that God has chosen in Christ to relate differently to creation. God's essential action toward creation is the same in Christ as it is ultimately in all of history, even if God speaks proximate negation in response to the negation that is sin. If the first response to the Fall is the Flood, the second response after Noah is Abraham. And Abraham is the true response of God, the response in which the Creator establishes faith with the creation by reserving a part for the sake of the whole. (Which is why I can't take the whole Christ and Adam thing as definitional.)

    And so, even though I have to disagree on particulars, I have to agree with your position resoundingly in the general, when you say that you "embrace the idea that who God is for us in Christ is grounded in the pre-temporal reality of his choice to be for us apart from and prior to the 'Fall' or even the creation itself. This theologically coheres with the Evangelical Calvinist conception of God’s life being shaped by who he is as love, and thus both chronologically and logically places his love and his self-determining freedom as the primary mode of God’s life; and thus the basis from which he acts, even in wrath. As such an Evangelical Calvinist may confidently assert that: 'There is no wrath of God that is not first experienced as the love of God for you.'" ... but I have to add that it is experienced in this way both first and last.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matt,

    Well, I appreciate your Lutheran perspective! Obviously the "Adams" theology plays a more prominent role for us than does your position. And I would like to think that even if we have a determinist theology, that is in fact qualified in such a way that it is ultimately only determinist in a personal, trinitarian, and dynamic way that in the end does not emphasize God as an impersonal bully; but instead as someone who determines who and what he does from a scope and life of love and intimacy for the other (in se/ad extra).

    In the end, I am glad that you appreciate our approach, in general. And I can only say amen to your elaboration of "both first and last". Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd have to read the entire chapter. Last time I figured all this out, I came to an alapsarian position.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.