The purpose of this research paper is to suggest how a teaching session on Christology, Soteriology and Eschatology could be conducted for a Catechism (or Membership) Class. The assumption is that this particular session is part of a larger course covering the other aspects of Christian doctrine and living. Due to the space constraint, this paper will focus on Christology, and will only touch on soteriology and eschatology as it pertains to Christology.
We have opted to present the material under the following 4 points.
1. The doctrine of Christ is presented in the Scriptures as a climax to the unfolding bible’s storyline.
Jesus himself and the biblical writers present Christ as a climax to the bible’s sto
ryline as revealed to us in the pages of Holy Scripture. Jesus himself says, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).”[3] The apostolic writers could say of Christ, “For no matter how may promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).”[4] Even Calvin himself, who saw the entire sweep of the history of redemption as covenantal in nature, viewed Christ as the mediator of both covenants,[5] though allowing for a progressive revelation of Christ as one transits from the Old Covenant to the New.[6]
The implication is that we must never view God’s salvation plan in Christ as an afterthought – either as an afterthought to Adam’s rebellion, or as an afterthought following the failure of Israel. Rather, we ‘have been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless and in his sight’ (Ephesians 1:4). Another implication is that we must never view Christology as merely another doctrine to be discussed on the same footing alongside with the other six major doctrines of Revelation and Scripture; God; Man; (Application of) Salvation; Church (and Sacraments), and Eschatology. Rather, if we understand correctly and see the Christ event as ‘the climatic move in Bible’s plot-line’[8], then we will see that the other doctrines stand in a much tighter connection with Christology; and in fact, find their fullest expression when considered only together with Christology. While we recognise there remains much room for seeing how exactly the inter-connections between the other doctrines and Christology work out, the conviction of the centrality of Christology in our systematic theological considerations remains clear, especially in light of the developing plot of the Bible’s storyline.
2. The doctrine of Christ, in its simplest form, can be viewed as considering the person and the work of our Lord Jesus, and is best covered under the significant key movements of the ‘Christ event’: Jesus’ incarnation; his life of obedience; his death; his resurrection; his ascension and exaltation, and his return as judge, as revealed by Holy Scripture.
Such an approach is not new, and in fact develops along the flow of Jesus’ work and ministry as revealed in the plotline of the Bible’s story and The Apostle’s Creed. Such was also the approach of John Calvin.[10] The salient points to be highlighted under each of these movements of the ‘Christ event’ are as follows:
Incarnation
Scripture moves us to consider and uphold the divinity and humanness of our Lord Jesus – that in the one person of our Lord Jesus, he was truly God and truly man at the same time. Romans 8:3 states that Jesus was ‘in the likeness of sinful man’, while Hebrews 2:14 states that ‘since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death’. John 1:14, on the other hand, affirms that the Word, who was with God and was God since the beginning, nonetheless ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’. The word ‘became’ has to be elaborated and expounded so as to avoid a whole host of misunderstandings. It does not mean ‘appeared to be’; nor ‘that the divine nature and human nature was somehow transformed into a new neither-here-nor-there kind of nature’; nor that ‘Christ simply had a human body but a divine soul’; nor ‘that Jesus became two persons - a divine person and a human person in one man’; nor that ‘Jesus emptied himself of his divinity in order to become man’.[12] Rather, the whole presentation of Scripture leads us towards the conclusions of the Definition of Chalcedon in AD 451 – that Jesus Christ was
[…] one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, being made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being by no means removed because of the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person […], not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, the Lord Jesus Christ […][13]
In another words, what we have to uphold in the incarnation is the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. he had one mind, will, soul, and body) who had both the divine nature and the human nature in him, but who acts as the one person.
The implications are staggering. We need the perfect God-man to save us. We need Christ to be human so as to take what was ours and we need Christ to be God so as to impart what is His (by nature) to us (by grace). We need Christ to be human so as to die our death but we need Christ to be God so as to overcome death and be victorious over it.[14] In short, in the incarnation, we see God who is for us, and we see a man who is for God – an answer to the two big questions that have arisen from the bible’s plotline thus far, “Is God for us or against us?”, and “which man is for God?”
Life of Obedience
Two points will suffice here. Firstly, Jesus’ life of obedience has always been neglected, or at best, treated as some kind of prelude to his atoning work on the cross. Rather, it is preferential, together with Calvin, to see Christ’s lifelong obedience as part of his atonement for us. He states, “In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.”[15] Yet, Calvin had his priorities right. By affirming the incarnation and sinless life of Christ as essential for our salvation, Calvin does not detract from the cross. Rather, he presents Christ’s obedience as an ongoing obedience which began with his birth and which culminated in his death on the cross. The early answer of Jesus “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4) culminates in his cry at Gethsemane “Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). The importance of this is as Calvin states, “even in death itself his willing obedience is the important thing because a sacrifice not offered voluntarily would not have furthered righteousness.”[16]
Secondly, the obedience of Jesus holds valuable lessons for us as we consider Christian living and ethics. The virtues held by Jesus; his behaviour and his actions all provide for us a model of the kingdom person to follow – better still: to ‘improvise’ – as we carry on living and participating in God’s Kingdom as we await for the Eschaton.
Death
There is tremendous discussion today on how we should view the death of Jesus and what is the best ‘model’ to represent what that death achieved.[18] D.A. Carson highlights rather than identifying different “models” of atonement theory that have been constructed across the history of the church and seeking to ground each within the New Testament, it is methodologically better to recognise that the New Testament and other biblical documents speak of the atonement in diverse and complementary ways. One should seek to see how these different aspects of the one atonement cohere and relate to one another and whether one aspect of the atonement rightly illumines and controls, and thus take precedence, over the others.[19] This is best done by considering the entire plotline of the Bible’s storyline, especially its major turning points in redemptive history, and seeing what are some of the dominant themes that have arisen so far in helping us consider what the cross achieved.
In this regard, one cannot deny the dominant presence of the themes of the love and wrath of God as we go through the bible’s storyline. Biblical books like Exodus, as well as the story of Israel as revealed in the Former and Latter Prophets, the typology of the Tabernacle and the Temple all highlight the pertinent question of how a Holy God can draw near to His people without destroying them because of their sin. Or as John Stott states, “How then can God express his holiness without consuming us, and his love without condoning our sins? How can God satisfy his holy love? How can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously?”[20]
This sets us up for the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. It is only as Christ dies in our place and on ou
r behalf that the wrath of God against sinners can be satisfied, and that there can be forgiveness. As Calvin states, “This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God.”[21], and further in that same chapter, “Christ was offered to the Father in death as an expiatory sacrifice that when he discharged all satisfaction through his sacrifice, we might cease to be afraid of God’s wrath.”[22] In fact, Calvin provides a good model for us when considering the work of the cross. He allows for other aspects of the atonement such as the Christus Victor motif , but subjugates that under the legal-penal theme and sacrifice metaphor.[23]
1. The doctrine of Christ is presented in the Scriptures as a climax to the unfolding bible’s storyline.
Jesus himself and the biblical writers present Christ as a climax to the bible’s sto
ryline as revealed to us in the pages of Holy Scripture. Jesus himself says, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).”[3] The apostolic writers could say of Christ, “For no matter how may promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).”[4] Even Calvin himself, who saw the entire sweep of the history of redemption as covenantal in nature, viewed Christ as the mediator of both covenants,[5] though allowing for a progressive revelation of Christ as one transits from the Old Covenant to the New.[6]The implication is that we must never view God’s salvation plan in Christ as an afterthought – either as an afterthought to Adam’s rebellion, or as an afterthought following the failure of Israel. Rather, we ‘have been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless and in his sight’ (Ephesians 1:4). Another implication is that we must never view Christology as merely another doctrine to be discussed on the same footing alongside with the other six major doctrines of Revelation and Scripture; God; Man; (Application of) Salvation; Church (and Sacraments), and Eschatology. Rather, if we understand correctly and see the Christ event as ‘the climatic move in Bible’s plot-line’[8], then we will see that the other doctrines stand in a much tighter connection with Christology; and in fact, find their fullest expression when considered only together with Christology. While we recognise there remains much room for seeing how exactly the inter-connections between the other doctrines and Christology work out, the conviction of the centrality of Christology in our systematic theological considerations remains clear, especially in light of the developing plot of the Bible’s storyline.
2. The doctrine of Christ, in its simplest form, can be viewed as considering the person and the work of our Lord Jesus, and is best covered under the significant key movements of the ‘Christ event’: Jesus’ incarnation; his life of obedience; his death; his resurrection; his ascension and exaltation, and his return as judge, as revealed by Holy Scripture.
Such an approach is not new, and in fact develops along the flow of Jesus’ work and ministry as revealed in the plotline of the Bible’s story and The Apostle’s Creed. Such was also the approach of John Calvin.[10] The salient points to be highlighted under each of these movements of the ‘Christ event’ are as follows:
Incarnation
Scripture moves us to consider and uphold the divinity and humanness of our Lord Jesus – that in the one person of our Lord Jesus, he was truly God and truly man at the same time. Romans 8:3 states that Jesus was ‘in the likeness of sinful man’, while Hebrews 2:14 states that ‘since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death’. John 1:14, on the other hand, affirms that the Word, who was with God and was God since the beginning, nonetheless ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’. The word ‘became’ has to be elaborated and expounded so as to avoid a whole host of misunderstandings. It does not mean ‘appeared to be’; nor ‘that the divine nature and human nature was somehow transformed into a new neither-here-nor-there kind of nature’; nor that ‘Christ simply had a human body but a divine soul’; nor ‘that Jesus became two persons - a divine person and a human person in one man’; nor that ‘Jesus emptied himself of his divinity in order to become man’.[12] Rather, the whole presentation of Scripture leads us towards the conclusions of the Definition of Chalcedon in AD 451 – that Jesus Christ was
[…] one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, being made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being by no means removed because of the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person […], not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, the Lord Jesus Christ […][13]
In another words, what we have to uphold in the incarnation is the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. he had one mind, will, soul, and body) who had both the divine nature and the human nature in him, but who acts as the one person.
The implications are staggering. We need the perfect God-man to save us. We need Christ to be human so as to take what was ours and we need Christ to be God so as to impart what is His (by nature) to us (by grace). We need Christ to be human so as to die our death but we need Christ to be God so as to overcome death and be victorious over it.[14] In short, in the incarnation, we see God who is for us, and we see a man who is for God – an answer to the two big questions that have arisen from the bible’s plotline thus far, “Is God for us or against us?”, and “which man is for God?”
Life of Obedience
Two points will suffice here. Firstly, Jesus’ life of obedience has always been neglected, or at best, treated as some kind of prelude to his atoning work on the cross. Rather, it is preferential, together with Calvin, to see Christ’s lifelong obedience as part of his atonement for us. He states, “In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.”[15] Yet, Calvin had his priorities right. By affirming the incarnation and sinless life of Christ as essential for our salvation, Calvin does not detract from the cross. Rather, he presents Christ’s obedience as an ongoing obedience which began with his birth and which culminated in his death on the cross. The early answer of Jesus “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4) culminates in his cry at Gethsemane “Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). The importance of this is as Calvin states, “even in death itself his willing obedience is the important thing because a sacrifice not offered voluntarily would not have furthered righteousness.”[16]
Secondly, the obedience of Jesus holds valuable lessons for us as we consider Christian living and ethics. The virtues held by Jesus; his behaviour and his actions all provide for us a model of the kingdom person to follow – better still: to ‘improvise’ – as we carry on living and participating in God’s Kingdom as we await for the Eschaton.
Death
There is tremendous discussion today on how we should view the death of Jesus and what is the best ‘model’ to represent what that death achieved.[18] D.A. Carson highlights rather than identifying different “models” of atonement theory that have been constructed across the history of the church and seeking to ground each within the New Testament, it is methodologically better to recognise that the New Testament and other biblical documents speak of the atonement in diverse and complementary ways. One should seek to see how these different aspects of the one atonement cohere and relate to one another and whether one aspect of the atonement rightly illumines and controls, and thus take precedence, over the others.[19] This is best done by considering the entire plotline of the Bible’s storyline, especially its major turning points in redemptive history, and seeing what are some of the dominant themes that have arisen so far in helping us consider what the cross achieved.
In this regard, one cannot deny the dominant presence of the themes of the love and wrath of God as we go through the bible’s storyline. Biblical books like Exodus, as well as the story of Israel as revealed in the Former and Latter Prophets, the typology of the Tabernacle and the Temple all highlight the pertinent question of how a Holy God can draw near to His people without destroying them because of their sin. Or as John Stott states, “How then can God express his holiness without consuming us, and his love without condoning our sins? How can God satisfy his holy love? How can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously?”[20]
This sets us up for the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. It is only as Christ dies in our place and on ou
r behalf that the wrath of God against sinners can be satisfied, and that there can be forgiveness. As Calvin states, “This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God.”[21], and further in that same chapter, “Christ was offered to the Father in death as an expiatory sacrifice that when he discharged all satisfaction through his sacrifice, we might cease to be afraid of God’s wrath.”[22] In fact, Calvin provides a good model for us when considering the work of the cross. He allows for other aspects of the atonement such as the Christus Victor motif , but subjugates that under the legal-penal theme and sacrifice metaphor.[23]Overall, the first implication of Christ’s death and burial is that we have victory over our enemies of death, the devil, and fear of God’s wrath. A second implication is that we also have victory over sin in the Christian life. By being united to Christ in his death (Romans 6:4-5), through the cross the world has been crucified to us, and we to the world (Galatians 6:14). By being joined to Christ’s death and burial, we have departed from our old way of life and our flesh has been mortified, as Calvin states.[24]
Resurrection
The first thing to emphasise when we come to considering Christ’s resurrection is that both Jesus’ death and resurrection are to be seen as a whole, and reference to either actually refers to the whole. Christ’s death and resurrection are so vital to Christianity that when Scripture speaks of either one of them, readers are to infer the other as well. The second thing is that while death and resurrection are to be thought of together, their respective roles in salvation can be distinguished. Calvin states, “Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation b
etween Christ’s death and resurrection as follows: through his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that – thanks to his resurrection – his death manifested its power and efficacy in us.”[26] In another words, Jesus’ resurrection shows the power and effectiveness of Jesus’ death for the believer. It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The third thing to highlight is that Jesus’ resurrection has massive implications for our Christian living and ethics. Just as we experience mortification in the cross, so now we experience vivification in Christ’s empty tomb – Jesus’ resurrection enables us to walk in newness of life. Jesus’ resurrection also serves as a guarantee of our own resurrection, and of God’s bigger promise to renew the world and this current creation.
Ascension and Exaltation
The ascension of Christ and his exaltation is next. Calvin highlights that as much as Christ has shown forth hi
s glory and power through the resurrection, yet he ‘truly inaugurated his Kingdom only at his ascension into heaven’.[27] With the ascension also comes the sending of the Holy Spirit in a new and powerful manner. Calvin states, “Carried up into heaven, therefore, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight [Acts 1:9], not to cease to be present with believers still on their earthly pilgrimage, but to rule heaven and earth by a more immediate power.”[28] Calvin goes on to highlight three ways in which Christ’s ascension benefits our faith – it shows that the way back to heaven is open for us even as Christ ascends heaven ‘in our flesh, as if in our name’; having entered into heaven, Christ appears before God the Father as our eternal high priest and intercessor; and the ascension displays Christ’s might and victory.[29] As Peterson states, “Our exalted Lord and Saviour gives enabling grace to his people, sanctifies them by his Spirit, gives gifts to his church, protects it from its enemies, restrains those enemies, and wields all power until he comes again as Judge.”[30]
Return as Judge
Christ’s return as judge vindicates God and will unveil His Kingdom fully for what it is, even though that kingdom is veiled or hidden from the world now. Christ’s return as judge also means a judgement for all – be they the living or the dead.
Perhaps there is no better way to conclude the significance of the ‘Christ event’ for us than to consider Calvin’s concluding hymn of praise to Christ that is lengthy but wonderful:
We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him” [1 Cor 1:30]. If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects [Heb 2:17] that he might learn to feel our pain [cf. Heb 5:2]. If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross [Gal 3:13]; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in His Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgement, in the power given to him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.[31]
3. The doctrine of soteriology can be thought of as the application of the redemption won by Christ. In this regard, the truth of our union with Christ is pivotal in showing how we come to experience the benefits of salvation.
The application of the redemption won by Christ is crucial to us experiencing salvation. As Calvin famously stated, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[32] In this regard, we agree with Calvin and other contemporary Reformed Theologians that the idea of union with Christ is what brings us into Christ such that we experience the benefits of the salvation he has won for us. This union finds its most prominent New Testament expression in the phrase ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Lord’, with slight variations, occurring frequently and almost exclusively in Paul’s letters (elsewhere, e.g. John 14:20, John 15:4-7, 1 John 2:28).[34] Such union is brought about by the ‘secret energy of the Spirit’ and ‘the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself’.[35] But faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is Spirit-worked, sovereignly and efficaciously. As Gaffin states “The union Calvin has in view, then, is union forged by the Spirit’s working faith in us, a faith that ‘puts on’ Christ, that embraces Christ as he is offered to faith in the gospel. Faith is the bond of the union seen from our side.”[36] In short, we promote Calvin’s ordo salutis[37] as the way to understand how the redemption won by Christ is applied to us: through an initial and continual union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith.
Two implications arise from such an understanding. Firstly, such an ordo salutis does not focus particularly on the chronological or logical order of the processes within – i.e. it is not heavily concerned with tracing out the sequence of events within salvation e.g. regeneration, repentance, illumination, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Rather, it is better to think of union with Christ as ‘an all-encompassing reality that resists being correlated as one benefit among others, like a single link in a chain’.[38] Secondly, contrary to some forms of current thinking, it is important to uphold the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Calvin is helpful on this point. He always relates justification and imputation to union with Christ. He states, “We do not therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body – in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.”[40] For Calvin, imputed righteousness cannot exist apart from union with Christ. Why? Because it is not an abstract entity but it is Christ’s own righteousness that is imputed to us and reckoned as ours. Likewise, there is no union without imputation. Our basis for justification comes not from being in relationship with Christ, no matter how real or intimate; neither does it come from a righteousness that results in me from that union. But rather, it comes from Christ’s own righteousness, which in union with him, is imputed to me.[41]
4. The doctrine of eschatology, while wide-encompassing and including many viewpoints (and controversies!), nonetheless find its basis in the person and work of Christ.
Space constrains us from elaborating on the various aspects of the doctrine of eschatology. It suffices to highlight here that we must not allow our discussions on the more controversial issues of eschatology to cloud out this essential point – that the doctrine of eschatology finds its basis in the person and work of Christ Jesus. Richard Bauckham states correctly when he states that ‘[Jesus’] ministry, death and resurrection constitute God’s definitive promise for the eschatological future of all things’. This promise is ‘in the form of concrete anticipation. What has happened to Jesus is what will happen to the whole creation.’[42] In another words,
Christian eschatology sets out from a definite reality in history (the history of Christ Jesus) and announces the future of that reality, its future possibilities and its power over the future. In that sense, Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future.[43] Bauckham’s conclusion is apt, “What is important is that the resurrection of the crucified Jesus entails the future coming of the kingdom he proclaimed. Its relationship to the eschatological future is constitutive of its meaning for Christian faith. Neither Jesus nor his resurrection can be understood in non-eschatological terms.”[44] The implication of this truth is that Christian eschatology and hence Christian hope cannot merely be an openness to the future without specific content; nor seen simply as the outcome of the process of history itself; nor a simple embodiment of ideas of utopia, but rather a recognition that it is God who will finally establish his rule over the world – a rule that extends to the new heavens and the new earth, with the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb at the center of it (Revelation 21:22)
[3] Other biblical passages that highlight this view of Jesus include Matthew 5:17, John 5:39-40.
[4] Other biblical passages from the apostolic writers include Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 3:10-11, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:1-2, and 1 Peter 1:10-12 among many others.
[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J.T. McNeill; trans. F.L. Battles; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 2.10.2 (henceforth will be abbreviated as Institutes): “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in mode of dispensation. […] they [the patriarchs] had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in his promises.” See also Institutes 2.10.23.
[6] Institutes 2.10.20
[8] The title of one of his chapters as used by D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), chapter 6.
[10] See Institutes 2.16-17.
Resurrection
The first thing to emphasise when we come to considering Christ’s resurrection is that both Jesus’ death and resurrection are to be seen as a whole, and reference to either actually refers to the whole. Christ’s death and resurrection are so vital to Christianity that when Scripture speaks of either one of them, readers are to infer the other as well. The second thing is that while death and resurrection are to be thought of together, their respective roles in salvation can be distinguished. Calvin states, “Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation b
etween Christ’s death and resurrection as follows: through his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that – thanks to his resurrection – his death manifested its power and efficacy in us.”[26] In another words, Jesus’ resurrection shows the power and effectiveness of Jesus’ death for the believer. It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The third thing to highlight is that Jesus’ resurrection has massive implications for our Christian living and ethics. Just as we experience mortification in the cross, so now we experience vivification in Christ’s empty tomb – Jesus’ resurrection enables us to walk in newness of life. Jesus’ resurrection also serves as a guarantee of our own resurrection, and of God’s bigger promise to renew the world and this current creation.Ascension and Exaltation
The ascension of Christ and his exaltation is next. Calvin highlights that as much as Christ has shown forth hi
s glory and power through the resurrection, yet he ‘truly inaugurated his Kingdom only at his ascension into heaven’.[27] With the ascension also comes the sending of the Holy Spirit in a new and powerful manner. Calvin states, “Carried up into heaven, therefore, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight [Acts 1:9], not to cease to be present with believers still on their earthly pilgrimage, but to rule heaven and earth by a more immediate power.”[28] Calvin goes on to highlight three ways in which Christ’s ascension benefits our faith – it shows that the way back to heaven is open for us even as Christ ascends heaven ‘in our flesh, as if in our name’; having entered into heaven, Christ appears before God the Father as our eternal high priest and intercessor; and the ascension displays Christ’s might and victory.[29] As Peterson states, “Our exalted Lord and Saviour gives enabling grace to his people, sanctifies them by his Spirit, gives gifts to his church, protects it from its enemies, restrains those enemies, and wields all power until he comes again as Judge.”[30]Return as Judge
Christ’s return as judge vindicates God and will unveil His Kingdom fully for what it is, even though that kingdom is veiled or hidden from the world now. Christ’s return as judge also means a judgement for all – be they the living or the dead.
Perhaps there is no better way to conclude the significance of the ‘Christ event’ for us than to consider Calvin’s concluding hymn of praise to Christ that is lengthy but wonderful:
We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him” [1 Cor 1:30]. If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects [Heb 2:17] that he might learn to feel our pain [cf. Heb 5:2]. If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross [Gal 3:13]; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in His Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgement, in the power given to him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.[31]
3. The doctrine of soteriology can be thought of as the application of the redemption won by Christ. In this regard, the truth of our union with Christ is pivotal in showing how we come to experience the benefits of salvation.
The application of the redemption won by Christ is crucial to us experiencing salvation. As Calvin famously stated, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[32] In this regard, we agree with Calvin and other contemporary Reformed Theologians that the idea of union with Christ is what brings us into Christ such that we experience the benefits of the salvation he has won for us. This union finds its most prominent New Testament expression in the phrase ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Lord’, with slight variations, occurring frequently and almost exclusively in Paul’s letters (elsewhere, e.g. John 14:20, John 15:4-7, 1 John 2:28).[34] Such union is brought about by the ‘secret energy of the Spirit’ and ‘the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself’.[35] But faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is Spirit-worked, sovereignly and efficaciously. As Gaffin states “The union Calvin has in view, then, is union forged by the Spirit’s working faith in us, a faith that ‘puts on’ Christ, that embraces Christ as he is offered to faith in the gospel. Faith is the bond of the union seen from our side.”[36] In short, we promote Calvin’s ordo salutis[37] as the way to understand how the redemption won by Christ is applied to us: through an initial and continual union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith.
Two implications arise from such an understanding. Firstly, such an ordo salutis does not focus particularly on the chronological or logical order of the processes within – i.e. it is not heavily concerned with tracing out the sequence of events within salvation e.g. regeneration, repentance, illumination, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Rather, it is better to think of union with Christ as ‘an all-encompassing reality that resists being correlated as one benefit among others, like a single link in a chain’.[38] Secondly, contrary to some forms of current thinking, it is important to uphold the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Calvin is helpful on this point. He always relates justification and imputation to union with Christ. He states, “We do not therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body – in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.”[40] For Calvin, imputed righteousness cannot exist apart from union with Christ. Why? Because it is not an abstract entity but it is Christ’s own righteousness that is imputed to us and reckoned as ours. Likewise, there is no union without imputation. Our basis for justification comes not from being in relationship with Christ, no matter how real or intimate; neither does it come from a righteousness that results in me from that union. But rather, it comes from Christ’s own righteousness, which in union with him, is imputed to me.[41]
4. The doctrine of eschatology, while wide-encompassing and including many viewpoints (and controversies!), nonetheless find its basis in the person and work of Christ.
Space constrains us from elaborating on the various aspects of the doctrine of eschatology. It suffices to highlight here that we must not allow our discussions on the more controversial issues of eschatology to cloud out this essential point – that the doctrine of eschatology finds its basis in the person and work of Christ Jesus. Richard Bauckham states correctly when he states that ‘[Jesus’] ministry, death and resurrection constitute God’s definitive promise for the eschatological future of all things’. This promise is ‘in the form of concrete anticipation. What has happened to Jesus is what will happen to the whole creation.’[42] In another words,
Christian eschatology sets out from a definite reality in history (the history of Christ Jesus) and announces the future of that reality, its future possibilities and its power over the future. In that sense, Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future.[43] Bauckham’s conclusion is apt, “What is important is that the resurrection of the crucified Jesus entails the future coming of the kingdom he proclaimed. Its relationship to the eschatological future is constitutive of its meaning for Christian faith. Neither Jesus nor his resurrection can be understood in non-eschatological terms.”[44] The implication of this truth is that Christian eschatology and hence Christian hope cannot merely be an openness to the future without specific content; nor seen simply as the outcome of the process of history itself; nor a simple embodiment of ideas of utopia, but rather a recognition that it is God who will finally establish his rule over the world – a rule that extends to the new heavens and the new earth, with the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb at the center of it (Revelation 21:22)[3] Other biblical passages that highlight this view of Jesus include Matthew 5:17, John 5:39-40.
[4] Other biblical passages from the apostolic writers include Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 3:10-11, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:1-2, and 1 Peter 1:10-12 among many others.
[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J.T. McNeill; trans. F.L. Battles; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 2.10.2 (henceforth will be abbreviated as Institutes): “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in mode of dispensation. […] they [the patriarchs] had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in his promises.” See also Institutes 2.10.23.
[6] Institutes 2.10.20
[8] The title of one of his chapters as used by D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), chapter 6.
[10] See Institutes 2.16-17.
[12] The technical names for all these errors are, respectively, docetism; monophysitism; apollinarianism; nestorianism, and kenoticism.
[13] Definition of Chalcedon AD 451 as quoted in Robert L. Reymond, ‘Classical Christology’s Future in Systematic Theology’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 91. It is also noted that the Definition of Chalcedon is also highlighted in The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church in Singapore) chapter VIII.2.
[14] Both points are highlighted by Calvin in Institutes 2.12.2-3.
[15] Institutes 2.16.5.
[16] Institutes 2.16.5
[18] For a sample of the discussion, see The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the theology of atonement (ed. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
[19] Carson makes this point in his book Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 61-62.
[20] John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 132.
[21] Institutes 2.16.5. This is why Calvin is insistent that Jesus did not just die any death, but that he had to be condemned to death under Pontius Pilate. Any other death would not have any ‘evidence of satisfaction’.
[22] Institutes 2.16.6
[23] A point made by Henri Blocher, ‘The Atonement in John Calvin’s Theology’, in The Glory of the Atonement (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 296-301.
[24] Institutes 2.16.7
[26] Institutes 2.16.13.
[27] Institutes 2.16.14.
[28] Institutes 2.16.14.
[29] Institutes 2.16.16
[30] Robert A. Peterson, ‘Calvin on Christ’s Saving Work’, in A Theological Guide To Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), 238.
[31] Institutes 2.16.19
[32] Institutes 3.1.1
[34] Richard B. Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 272.
[35] Institutes 3.1.1
[36] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 279.
[37] Order of salvation
[38] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 280.
[40] Institutes 3.11.10
[41] This last point comes from Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 286-87.
[42] Richard Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (ed. John B. Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance; USA: Oxford University Press, 2007), 309.
[43] A point made by Moltmann as quoted by Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.
[44] Backham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.
[13] Definition of Chalcedon AD 451 as quoted in Robert L. Reymond, ‘Classical Christology’s Future in Systematic Theology’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 91. It is also noted that the Definition of Chalcedon is also highlighted in The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church in Singapore) chapter VIII.2.
[14] Both points are highlighted by Calvin in Institutes 2.12.2-3.
[15] Institutes 2.16.5.
[16] Institutes 2.16.5
[18] For a sample of the discussion, see The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the theology of atonement (ed. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
[19] Carson makes this point in his book Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 61-62.
[20] John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 132.
[21] Institutes 2.16.5. This is why Calvin is insistent that Jesus did not just die any death, but that he had to be condemned to death under Pontius Pilate. Any other death would not have any ‘evidence of satisfaction’.
[22] Institutes 2.16.6
[23] A point made by Henri Blocher, ‘The Atonement in John Calvin’s Theology’, in The Glory of the Atonement (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 296-301.
[24] Institutes 2.16.7
[26] Institutes 2.16.13.
[27] Institutes 2.16.14.
[28] Institutes 2.16.14.
[29] Institutes 2.16.16
[30] Robert A. Peterson, ‘Calvin on Christ’s Saving Work’, in A Theological Guide To Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), 238.
[31] Institutes 2.16.19
[32] Institutes 3.1.1
[34] Richard B. Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 272.
[35] Institutes 3.1.1
[36] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 279.
[37] Order of salvation
[38] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 280.
[40] Institutes 3.11.10
[41] This last point comes from Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 286-87.
[42] Richard Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (ed. John B. Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance; USA: Oxford University Press, 2007), 309.
[43] A point made by Moltmann as quoted by Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.
[44] Backham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.
No comments:
Post a Comment