×

In his new book, Retrieving Doctrine: Essays in Reformed Theology, Oliver Crisp introduces his readers to some of his dead acquaintances. He opens the book with this arresting sentence: “It is a strange and seldom noted fact that theologians spend much of their time in the company of the dead” (vii). According to Crisp, theology is “inextricably bound up with the Christian tradition,” and in this book he offers a compelling introduction to one important strand, namely, the Reformed tradition. Crisp’s previous work includes studies in historical theology and philosophical theology, as well as two excellent volumes defending a traditional, Chalcedonian Christology. This new collection of essays provides an admirable example of historical theology pressed into the service of systematic theology.

Crisp has labeled his approach “theological retrieval.” Taking his cue from John Webster’s discussion of “retrieval theologies,” Crisp’s project aims for “the retrieval of [past theologians’] ideas for the purpose of constructive dogmatics” (viii). While retrieval theology is related to historical theology, it seeks more intentionally to bring the theological past into dialogue with the theological discussions of the present. Thus, retrieval theology aims for a “collegial approach” to past theologians (viii), incorporating their insights while, at the same time, being willing to disagree with and improve upon their formulations.

Crisp limits his study to nine topics in the Reformed tradition, divided into three sections: creation and providence, sin and salvation, and the Christian life. Some of the ground that Crisp covers here is well-tread. For example, he discusses John Calvin on providence (chapter 1) and prayer (chapter 7), Karl Barth on creation (chapter 2) and universalism (chapter 6), and Jonathan Edwards on the imputation of sin (chapter 3) and the qualifications for Communion (chapter 9). But even in these more well-known areas of historical inquiry, Crisp offers a fresh approach. For instance, rather than merely focusing on the historical drama of Edwards’s dismissal from his church over his Communion views, Crisp also seeks to show how Edwards’s views on the nature of the church (especially his view that the church is metaphysically united to Christ) led to his revised view on the proper subjects at the Lord’s Table.

Retrieving Doctrine: Essays in Reformed Theology

Retrieving Doctrine: Essays in Reformed Theology

IVP (2011). 209 pp.

In this volume Oliver Crisp offers a set of essays that analyze the significance and contribution of several great thinkers in the Reformed tradition, ranging from John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards to Karl Barth. Crisp demonstrates how these thinkers navigated pressing theological issues in their historical settings and in what ways contemporary readers can draw important insights from the tradition relevant to current discussions.

IVP (2011). 209 pp.

A few of the theologians treated by Crisp may be lesser known to some readers. For example, he examines the Reformed orthodox theologian Francis Turretin on the necessity of the incarnation and atonement (chapter 4), the Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell on non-penal substitution (chapter 5), and the German-American Presbyterian John Williamson Nevin on the nature of the church (chapter 8). These studies show that the Reformed tradition has resources that may be as-yet unmined by contemporary dogmatic theologians. Crisp proves to be an informative guide to these lesser known aspects of the tradition, and hopefully his work will inspire similar studies of the primary sources themselves.

An Exercise in Analytic Theology

Crisp’s collection of essays has much to commend it. Some of these strengths have already been identified. Crisp helpfully brings together various theological disciplines, offers fresh insights into old debates, and provides sound guidance into lesser-known theological arguments. In addition to these strengths, his work possesses the clarity and precision of argumentation that characterize the analytic-philosophical tradition in which he writes. In recent years, Crisp and other theologians and philosophers have argued for the development of an “analytic theology”-that is, an approach to the traditional topics of Christian theology that utilizes the tools and methods of the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy. Retrieving Doctrine is, in a sense, as much an exercise in analytic theology as it is in retrieval theology. Crisp has a striking ability to locate and tease out the potential problems in a theological argument. He often lays out an argument in propositional form in order to test its coherence and examine the directions its logic might lead. This volume is, therefore, a welcome addition to the growing body of literature in analytic theology.

Despite the many strengths of Crisp’s book, not all Reformed evangelicals will agree with a few of his conclusions. Some of the debatable issues are matters of historical interpretation. For example, is Crisp right to argue that Jonathan Edwards held to the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin, when some passages in Edwards seem to point in the direction of a mediate imputation? Other disagreements are related to Crisp’s more constructive proposals. For instance, Crisp describes substitutionary atonement as a kind of legal “fiction” (102), and maintains that “guilt is not something that is transferable from one person to another” (111). To be fair, Crisp isn’t denying the doctrine of substitution, but he seems to think that it must be grounded in some kind of real, metaphysical union. Of course, the Reformed tradition would agree that union with Christ grounds substitution and imputation, but it has typically spoken of this union in covenantal, rather than realistic, terms. The elect are covenantally united to Christ-their federal head-and hence their sin becomes his, and his righteousness theirs. But Crisp, following his interpretation of Nevin, seems to think that some kind of Augustinian realism must obtain not only with regard to Adam and his offspring but also with regard to Christ and his church (170). Many Reformed theologians will demur at this realist approach.

One other issue is worthy of a more extended discussion. In his chapter on Francis Turretin and the necessity of the atonement, Crisp goes beyond Turretin’s reasoning to suggest that redemption itself is, in some sense, necessary. For Turretin, the incarnation and atonement are conditional necessities. If God chooses to redeem some portion of fallen humanity, then the incarnation and atonement of Christ are the only possible means by which he could bring about this redemption. However, for Turretin, God is not constrained by his nature to redeem anyone; God could have left all fallen human beings to their just condemnation in hell. Crisp, on the other hand, sees this latter argument as a weakness in Turretin’s view. While agreeing with Turretin that the incarnation was necessary for redemption, Crisp goes further to argue that it was not possible for God not to save some. While salvation is a gracious act, “such that God did not have to save any given fallen human,” it was not “possible for God to save no fallen human being, given the fact that God is essentially gracious and merciful” (73, n.7). Crisp believes that the classic conception of God-that God is metaphysically simple, possesses all of his attributes necessarily, and is “pure act,” having no unrealized potentiality-necessitates that his grace and mercy find expression in salvation, should he choose to create a world and permit its fall into sin. He does not see this as a problematic restriction on God’s freedom because it is God’s own nature, not some law above God, that constrains him to act in a saving way.

Responses to a Thought-Provoking Examination

Several things could be said in response:

First, even if God’s nature constrains him to act in a gracious manner toward fallen humans, must this grace be salvific? Could not God’s gracious nature find adequate expression in the manifold examples of his common grace shown to undeserving humans? It seems that Crisp is assuming not only that God must act graciously to some fallen humans, but also that he must act in particular (that is, saving) way. It seems to me that this assumption needs to be more thoroughly defended.

Second, is this the way that Scripture speaks of God’s gracious decision to save? Scripture seems to teach that salvation is a free act of God, not only in the sense that he did not have to save any particular person (Rom. 9:15), but also in the sense that he did not have to save any fallen human at all. Consider the fact that no salvation has been provided for fallen angels (Heb. 2:16). Presumably, this could have been the plight of fallen humanity, were it not for God’s free and merciful decision to save some.

Third, while it is true that God possesses all of his attributes necessarily, it may be best to think of grace and mercy not as essential attributes but as contingent expressions of his essential attribute of goodness. The great Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck seemed to argue in this fashion. He subsumed grace and mercy under the attribute of goodness, arguing that in church history “grace was usually not thought of as a divine virtue but in terms of the benefits that God, out of grace, grants to the church in Christ. Hence, it was usually not treated as one of the attributes of God” (Reformed Dogmatics II: 214). Bavinck admits that some have described grace as a “virtue” or “attribute” of God, but even those who did so (such as Thomas Aquinas) also reverted to the more common sense of grace as a benefit freely given by God. This approach would seem to better account for the essential nature of God’s attributes and still preserve the freeness of God’s decision to save.

Finally, if one wants to argue for the necessity of redemption based upon God’s pure actuality (God has “no potential and no metaphysical ‘room’ for further exercise of his divine nature,” 89), then it seems that creation itself (as well as the fall into sin) would also be necessary. Crisp does not take this additional step, but, given his reasoning, it isn’t clear how one can avoid it. If God’s grace is essential to God and must be exercised, then there must exist some creatures properly suited (that is, in a fallen state) to receive this grace. To be sure, God is pure act, but he is so in himself, prior to and independent of any act outside of himself.

These issues notwithstanding, Crisp has provided a thought-provoking examination of several key thinkers and topics in the Reformed tradition. Some of the philosophical analysis might be tough sledding at points, but the book rewards the efforts. Crisp’s work reminds us that Christian theologians need to keep good company, even if it is among the dead.

Podcasts

LOAD MORE
Loading