Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 12 - The Doctrine of Accidental Sanctification

The following post will be a final reading reflection for the THEO 351 blogging assignment. It will be a reflection on a section entitled “The Spirit of Jesus Christ” from the book Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, by Gary D. Badcock.[1]

Badcock writes that some early christologies had a broad pneumatic character to them, but in later theology the Holy Spirit was excluded from the christological category of theology, resulting in negative implications which are still with us today.[2] In this article Badcock is concerned with how to reintegrate pneumatology into christology in order to gain a more holistic understanding of Christ and the Spirit, and of God’s salvific work in creation.[3] He examines the Roman Catholic reappraisal of the scholastic doctrine of the “habitual” or “accidental” sanctification of Jesus, which describes the relation of the Spirit and the Logos to the human nature of Christ, within the doctrine of the hypostatic union (the union of the two natures in Christ).

In the scholastic doctrine of the hypostatic union a distinction is made between the grace of union and habitual, or accidental, grace. The grace of union is strictly concerned with the Logos assuming the human nature in the incarnation. This anointing of the human nature with the divine gave Jesus essential or substantial sanctification. Accidental or habitual sanctification and graces are graces received external to hypostatic union, and appropriated by the Holy Spirit. In the case of Jesus habitual grace enabled him to live a godly life, and heal the sick. In this doctrine then, the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life is secondary to the hypostatic union.[4]

It should be noted that there is no time lag or long process involved here. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Since he [Jesus] had already reached the goal of creaturely union with God from his conception, through his substantial sanctification in the grace of union, the accidental graces of the Holy Spirit must also have been present in their fullness from the beginning.”[5]

The purpose of this doctrine of hypostatic union was to “acknowledge the true humanity of Christ and to provide a distinctive role in Christology for the Holy Spirit in its relation to humanity.”[6] The problem, Badcock writes, is that since the accidental sanctification of the humanity of Jesus is a function of the incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit ends up appearing superfluous. Badcock goes on to examine Heribert Mühlen’s corrective to the doctrine of accidental sanctification as a possible solution.

This is a new doctrine and new discussion for me. It has taken me quite a few readings to get a grasp on the various terminology and ideas being expressed. I have hardly mastered this doctrine, but I think I have not too bad of an understanding of it now. One of the things that I have wondered as I have read through this article is what kind of effect the doctrine of  the communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) would have in this discussion. I will give two examples.

Badcock writes that the concept of human nature in the doctrine of accidental sanctification is defective since it does not allow for “growth of movement in Jesus’ human relation to God”; such development is “essential to human existence,” and without it one cannot be human.[7] Reference the communicatio idiomatum, Lutheran theologian A.G. Voigt writes:

“Full justice is not done to such declarations [as found in Matt 9:6; 11:27, 28:18; John 5:27; Phil 3:21; Eph 4:10] by attributing to the human nature of Christ only extraordinary, but limited powers, while the divine properties are exclusively restricted to the divine nature . . . . Such utterances show that the human nature participates in the glories of the divine, that is, the attributes of the divine nature are in their operation shared in by the human  nature.”[8]

Given the way that the human nature of Christ shares in the divine nature, I wonder if Badcock’s statement about the necessity of development as a requirement for being human is really valid for Christ. If not, then there is no problem.

In another example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that since the mission of the Holy Spirit is to bestow habitual grace, and since the Holy Spirit rested on Jesus, it is therefore evident that Jesus must have possessed habitual grace. And, since Jesus’ human nature is not confused with the divine after hypostatic union, it is therefore necessary that Jesus participate in the divine just like any other man, i.e. through the reception of habitual grace by the Holy Spirit.[9] In the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum Christ’s two natures are not confused, but there is a true communion between them, and each nature shares in the attributes of the other. Again, given the communication of attributes between the divine and human natures, I wonder if St. Thomas’ statement about Christ having to participate in the divine just like any other man (and hence the necessity for habitual grace) is accurate.

Regardless of whether my thoughts regarding the communication of attributes are correct or not, this article has made me interested in doing further study on this topic. I would like to think further on the necessity and benefits of developing a christology with a broader pneumatic character.

______________________________

[1] Gary D. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 145-153.

[2] Ibid., 145-146.

[3] Ibid. 147.

[4] Ibid., 146-147. (for this whole paragraph)

[5] Ibid., 147.

[6] Ibid., 149.

[7] Ibid.

[8] A.G. Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics, American Lutheran Classics Volume 3, ed. Jordan Cooper (Fairfield, IA: Just and Sinner Publications, 2013), 126.

[9] Badcock, Light of Truth, 147.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 11 - Kärkkäinen on the Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg

The following post is a reflection on a journal article entitled “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg” by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen.

Kärkkäinen writes that the most characteristic feature of Pannenberg’s pneumatology is his comprehensive and holistic approach in showing the critical role of the Holy Spirit in Creation, salvation, the Church, and the eschaton.[1] The section titled “The Spirit, Salvation, and Christian Community” (pages 25  - 28) is the part of the article that I enjoyed the most. I appreciate Pannenberg’s emphasis on salvation being “always mediated by the church, by its proclamation and administration of the sacraments.”[2] I found interesting Pannenberg’s explanation of how having a pneumatology that is integrally related to creation and eschatology guards against both the view that sees the work of the Holy Spirit as only in the fellowship of believers, as well as against a harmful enthusiasm, as manifested throughout church history in groups like the Montanists.[3]

An area that I am in agreement with Kärkkäinen is his caution towards Pannenberg’s use of field concept to depict the Holy Spirit as a force field.  Pannenberg uses field theory in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit to help explain how the presence of the Holy Spirit “pervades all of creation.”[4] Among other problems with this, Kärkkäinen states that this makes the Holy Spirit impersonal, which is a notion completely foreign to Christian theology.[5] He also questions the adequacy and appropriateness of borrowing ideas from the physical sciences to explain theology.[6] I agree. Scientists have a way of changing their ideas and concepts from time to time, and I find it difficult to see how something like field theory could be adequate to explain God in any kind of enduring way. Despite Kärkkäinen’s apprehension of Pannenberg’s use of field theory, he still writes that “its potential for building bridges between science and the public sphere is undisputed.” This sort of approach thinks that if we can just appeal to such and such a group enough, they will be so impressed with our openness that they will want to become Christians. This approach to evangelism is not helpful, and can even have the opposite effect. There is also very real potential for adopting ideas that can prove wrong, and even harmful.

Overall, Pannenberg is most enjoyable when he sticks to traditional theology. Although I am not convinced by his more innovative ideas, this article was interesting to read.

 ______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004): 25, 31.

[2] Ibid., 26.

[3] Ibid., 27.

[4] Ibid., 20.

[5] Ibid., 23.

[6] Ibid., 32.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 10 - The Filioque

The following post is a continued reflection on the journal article entitled “Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit” by Warren McWilliams.[1]

In this article McWilliams surveys two Reformed theologians, Barth and Moltmann, who have directly opposing views on the filioque. Barth believes that this phrase is absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of the Trinity, salvation, and eternal nature of humanity. Moltmann rejects it and believes that it subordinates the Holy Spirit to the son, is not faithful to salvation history, and is superfluous. Moltmann proposes the formulation, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son” to replace “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

I find Barth’s argument most convincing, and think that he is correct both in what the filioque clarifies as well as with what it guards against. I do not think Moltmann’s proposal for a revised formula is helpful. We do not need three (or more) versions of the creed. Would this not have the effect of adding more disagreement and confusion throughout the church? On the issue of authority, I must admit that I do find it surprising that Western Christians felt that it was okay to amend a creed that was formulated and agreed upon ecumenically in a council. Nonetheless, at this point in history I do not think that the answer is to retract the filioque. There is a similarity between this issue and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Prior to the Reformation the doctrine of justification was not formulated or stressed in the same way that it came to be in the Reformation. It came to be formulated because of the circumstances in the Western church at the time. It was also formulated non-ecumenically; that is to say, it was not formulated and agreed upon by bishops representing the entire church. Even so, Protestants still believe that this doctrine is biblical and true. Most would agree that having been enlightened by the truth of this doctrine we should not retract it, or say that it does not matter, even for the sake of unity.[2]  The similarity with the filioque is that it also was formulated non-ecumenically. Just as differing opinion and opposition remain with the doctrine of justification, differing opinion and opposition remain with the filioque. Similarly, those who hold to the phrase believe it to be biblical, true, good, and salutary. I believe the Protestant doctrine of justification is a weightier matter than the filioque, but we should not get rid of something that we know to be true just for the sake of unity.[3]

The creed without the filioque is not wrong, but neither is it wrong with it. Forcing one side to either add or subtract the filioque could have the effect of harming consciences. Perhaps this is an area where we could maintain Christian unity while letting each side of the church carry on confessing the creed as they have been accustom to doing.
____________________________

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 168-181.

[2] Not all agree. The Lutheran World Federation prepared the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” with the Roman Catholic Church in 1999. This has been rejected by confessional Lutheranism.

[3] I suspect this comparison probably falls short, but just a thought.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 9 - The Filioque and Christian Unity

The following post is a reading reflection on a journal article entitled “Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit” by Warren McWilliams.

In the previous article that I read for this assignment the evangelical theologian Clark H. Pinnock voiced his opposition to the filioque. Pinnock believes that the addition of this phrase by the Western church was an abuse of power.[1] He believes that the creed was better before it, and that removing it would be “healing to the divided church.”[2] Likewise, in this current article Reformed theologian Jurgen Moltmann also opposes the filioque and believes that returning to the original form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed would help end the schism between the East and the West.[3] McWilliams goes on to show in this article that the World Council of Churches also takes this point of view and has recommended that all churches recognize the Nicene creed without the filioque as normative.[4]

There is something that seems a little odd to me in this sentiment. If the Roman Catholic Church were to retract the filioque then I could see it as plausible that a significant step towards repairing relations with the East could possibly be made, since those two communions have a fair bit in common; however, I cannot see it doing the same for any Protestant communion. It is worth nothing that the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) condemned Protestants as heretical on many points.[5] The filioque is probably one of the lesser issues between Protestants (of those who follow the creed) and Eastern Orthodox.

I also wonder if it is not at least a little ironic that Christians who do not believe in baptismal regeneration are taking strong issue with the filioque, but not with, “I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.”[6] There is also the question of who speaks for Protestantism.

As is probably evident I have become a little cynical when it comes to the achievement of Christian unity, but I am certainly not against working towards unity with other Christian denominations. I am happy to see such efforts and fruit in my own denomination.[7] Christians should seek unity and agreement wherever we can, but I am skeptical that rolling back the clock on the filioque would have the results for which Pinnock, Moltmann, and others are hopeful.

______________________________

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 197.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Warren McWilliams, “Why all the Fuss about the Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit,” Journal of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (date and issue unknown): 173.

[4] Ibid., 180.

[5] The article at the following link shows instances of the historic opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy against both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: “Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?,” Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed 25 June 2016, http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx.

[6] Responses #6 and #7 of the discussion at the following link give a nice explanation of the Reformed view of this phrase: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/39146-The-Nicene-Creed-quot-One-Baptism-quot


[7] See the following links for some nice examples of ecumenical work by confessional Lutherans with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and other Lutherans:

http://www.canadianlutheran.ca/confessional-lutherans-and-anglicans-draw-closer-together/

http://ilc-online.org/2016/05/12/second-meeting-ilc-pcpcu-dialogue-group/

http://ilc-online.org/2016/05/18/nordic-lutheran-dioceses-enter-fellowship-talks-german-english-lutherans/

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 8 - Pinnock - Part 2

The following post is a continued reflection on chapter six of the book Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Clark H. Pinnock.

In this chapter Pinnock lays out an argument regarding the question of salvation for those who have never heard the gospel, and related to this, how God might work through other religions. Pinnock’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit is what enables the rest of his conclusions on this matter. In this post, I will try to focus only on Pinnock’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit as it relates to the topic.[1]

Pinnock writes that “participation in salvation is not impossible for people outside the church,” and that people who have never heard the gospel can gain access to it through the Spirit.[2] This is because “grace is always present by the Spirit,” and the Spirit is present everywhere.[3] It is in this manner that God penetrates other religions and cultures with his truth.[4]

For Pinnock, the Holy Spirit is a general presence of God that is present throughout all of creation and present in every living creature. In order to cultivate the idea of a general, universal presence of the Spirit, rather than refer to “the Holy Spirit,” Pinnock usually drops the definite article and simply refers to “Spirit.”  So it is through the ubiquitous presence of “Spirit” in creation, and the association of ever present grace with the presence of “Spirit” that Pinnock is able to conclude that there is a possibility of salvation for those outside of the church.

At times Pinnock does not seem to be saying anything out of the ordinary. For example, yes, Christ died for all. Yes, God's grace is universal, and yes, everyone who is saved  is enlightened and drawn to God by the Holy Spirit. But, overall I am not comfortable with Pinnock's view. It seems to be along the lines of panentheism, and appears to confuse the breath of life given to man with the regeneration and sanctification received through conversion. It is true that the Scriptures talk of the Spirit as “moving over the surface of the water” at creation, and compares the Spirit to the wind blowing where it wishes, but this does not negate particularity or definiteness to the presence of the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2; John 3:5 MEV). The ancient creeds—Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian—do not talk of the Holy Spirit as a general presence either. Likewise, I believe that the act of the Spirit associated with the giving and sustenance of life (Job 34:14; Psalm 104:29-30) is different from the experience of regeneration by the repentant (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5). At the moment, I cannot think of any where in Scripture where a general presence of the Holy Spirit is equated with “grace,” although that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” does come to mind (John 1:17).

For Pinnock it is also important that Spirit be seen as having a particular mission, distinct from that of the Father and the Son. It is for this reason that Pinnock is opposed to the filioque, as he believes that this phrase “can threaten our understanding of the Spirit’s universality,” and that it “diminishes the role of the Spirit and gives the impression that he has no mission of his own.”[5] In light of the doctrines of perichoresis and opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt  I do not believe that these concerns are warranted, and I am also not willing to oppose the filioque.

Overall, I find Pinnock's doctrine of the Holy Spirit troubling. It would seem that without his pneumatology his overall argument does not work; however, this would require a separate study.

______________________________

[1] Pinnock’s overall argument deserves a response; however, as the due date for this course is very close, I do not have time. On this topic I am inclined towards the explanation presented at [1a] by Pr. Sam Schuldheisz, including comment #9 from Pr. Don Kirchner in the comment section. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the remarks in the letter at [1b] from the late Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart are also good to bear in mind.

[1a] http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/10/qa-what-about-those-who-havent-heard-the-gospel-do-christians-and-muslims-believe-the-same-thing/

[1b] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/theologoumena-from-a-great-theologian-rev-dr-marquart-on-who-may-be-saved/

[2] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 211-212.

[3] Ibid., 202, 212.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 196.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 7 - Pinnock - Part 1

The following post is a reflection on chapter six of the book Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Clark H. Pinnock. Chapter six is entitled “Spirit and Universality.”

After reading chapter six in Flame of Love it is evident that Pinnock is wrestling with the questions, “Can those who have never heard the Gospel be saved?” and, “Does God work in other religions?”  It is a rather confusing article to read. Pinnock first gives the impression that he believes that all will be saved, only to eventually state that he does not believe in universalism. He then gives the impression that he believes that people can be saved through other religions, only to later firmly state that he does not. I will illustrate with some examples:

“Theology has not found it easy to handle biblical universality. It has tended to place so much emphasis on the uniqueness of the work of Christ that it has often left the impression that most members of the human race are without hope of salvation. Many people think that unless persons become Christians and church members, they are going to hell through no fault of their own, and there is no remedy. Even though such a notion does little justice to God’s desire that all receive his love and be saved . . . .”[1]

This is the tone of the first five pages of the chapter, but then on page six Pinnock writes:

“There are two errors to avoid when we think of the gospel’s universality: one is to say dogmatically that all will be saved, and the other is to say that only a few will be. The first error, called universalism, is widespread in mainline churches; the other, called restrictivism, plagues traditionalists.”[2]

Pinnock is not a universalist, he is against “restrictivism.” Pinnock defines restrictivism as "the doctrine that non-Christians will all be damned, whether they hear the gospel or not."[3]  Regarding other religions Pinnock writes:

“God is drawing the nations, and religions supply occasions when people can respond to him.”[4]

“Spirit, who is at work everywhere, is at work in the history of religions, and religions play a part in the history of grace, as the Spirit moves the world toward the kingdom. The world is being prepared for the gospel as redemptive bridges are built in human cultures. No wonder we find saintly people and signs of truth in world religions. They may provide a window of opportunity for the Spirit to engage sinners, without diminishing the importance of Jesus, the fulfillment of all such aspirations.”[5]

“Though Jesus is not named in other faiths, Spirit is present and may be experienced.”[6]

But, Pinnock also writes:

“However many positive elements are found, non-Christian religions lack the knowledge of God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ.”[7]

“Rahner goes too far with his category of ‘lawful’ religion. He goes beyond admitting, as I do, the possibility of the Spirit’s speaking to people of other faiths to say that religions are valid as temporary means of salvation before evangelization.”[8]

Ultimately, Pinnock believes that the majority of humanity will be saved. Those who actively and knowingly reject God’s grace will not be, but they will be the minority. God is at work throughout the entire world drawing people into salvation. That is, people can participate in salvation whether they are within or outside the church. Knowing Jesus or being part of the church on earth is not the criteria for salvation; salvation has to do with living out good behaviour in-line with how Jesus would want us to live. As such, those who have never heard the gospel, or never come into physical contact with the church can be, and most likely will be, saved.

 

Pinnock is rightfully concerned that the universality of God’s grace be championed. His fuel for doing so, however, appears to be the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination.[9] At times his arguments do not seem to take into account those who hold to universal grace, but not limited atonement. Nevertheless, Pinnock's theological basis for what I summarized in the above paragraph is his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To this I will turn in my next post.

_____________________________

 

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 186.

[2] Ibid., 190.

[3] Ibid., 191.

[4] Ibid., 201.

[5] Ibid., 203-204.

[6] Ibid., 204.

[7] Ibid., 206.

[8] Ibid., 207.

[9] Ibid., 191.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 6 - Kärkkäinen - Epilogue

The following post is a reading reflection on the epilogue of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

In the first part of the epilogue Kärkkäinen affirms a more traditional view of the Holy Spirit’s work. He affirms that the main work of the Holy Spirit is to “turn our eyes away from himself to the Son and through the Son to the Father.”[1] He also applauds the theologians of the first centuries in refraining to speculate too much on the work of the Spirit.[2] But, as seems to be expected of a good scholar, he then goes on to affirm the validity of the various views of the Spirit surveyed throughout his book. He writes, “The one Spirit of God opens himself into a myriad of experiences . . . . Each of these, and many more, testify to the endless bounty and richness of the Spirit’s agenda in God’s creation.”[3]

But, is the Spirit’s agenda the same as the feminist agenda, complete with its adjustments to the doctrine of God? How about the ecological agenda, or process theology? How about the universalist tendency of Rahner and Pinnock, or the panentheism expressed in ecological pneumatology?[4] Or how about the discernment of harmful spirits in market commodities (African pneumatology)? What of the mystic tradition?

I have a difficult time believing that the one Spirit of God is behind all of these varied interests, concerns and innovations. As Kärkkäinen writes, there is indeed “something honorable [sic] and enlightening in the reservation of the theologians of the first centuries to say too much about the Spirit.”[5] Rather than looking for “a fresh interpretation of what the Spirit is doing,” I think I will stick to learning about pneumatology from traditional theology.[6]

______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 175.

[2] Ibid., 176.

[3] Ibid., 177.

[4] Panentheism is also an element that seems to be present in Rahner (112), Pannenberg (122-123), Moltmann (127), and process theology (150).

[5] Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 176.

[6] Ibid., 177.