8 comments

1. Michael, you wrote to Scott above: ” You will understand once you read the article. What he is doing is arguing for a particular theology of works *from Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel* It is not a study of the docrine of double justification in Calvin per se, rather, a study as it relates to Calvin’s commentary on a particular pericope of scripture. It is in my opinion well researched. I read it alongside of Calvin and I thought it was extremely faithful.”

   This is exactly right. Coxhead doesn’t address double justification. You are the one to introduce it in defense of Coxhead’s effort to say that Calvin argued for justification by works in a subordinate sense. Yet, in the quotations I produced, no one would ever try to infer that Calvin was trying to argue for justification by works, not even in some kind of qualified way.

   And this is what I find confounding, aside from an OT scholar quoting from Calvin selectively and not having anyone beside McGrath as a secondary source for his reading of Calvin. Why would you even want Calvin to say justification by works?

   The two fold righteousness has to do with two benefits of salvation, as I understand it, one forensic and one renovative. Neither of these benefits are based on works, especially the forensic. So my problem remains with Coxhead.

2. Dr. Clark,

   Let me be very clear, I don’t know anything about his qualifications as a historical theologian. As for your question, “If Calvin’s doctrine of double justification is so well-known why do we need a vocational OT scholar to explain it to us once again?”

   You will understand once you read the article. What he is doing is arguing for a particular theology of works *from Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel* It is not a study of the docrine of double justification in Calvin per se, rather, a study as it relates to Calvin’s commentary on a particular pericope of scripture. It is in my opinion well researched. I read it alongside of Calvin and I thought it was extremely faithful.

   Dr. Hart,

   You ask, “then why didn’t Coxhead cite all of the secondary literature?”

   Honestly, I don’t know why he doesn’t use more secondary literature. I suppose, he wanted to lean on the primary sources as much as possible, although in footnote 130 of the second article (in WTJ Spring 2009) he does allude to the secondary literature. Regardless, the secondary literature is vast. Venema has a whole chapter dedicated to “double justification” in his dissertaion, Garcia deals extensively with it, Wallace, Neisel, and Lilliback all deal with it. Tony Lane’s article “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification (Reflections on Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy)” in the book Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, is all about double justification and the Reformers. Anyhow, all that to say is that if you believe Coxhead is coming to a different conclusion than all of these other scholars then fine (I would want you to prove it). But I don’t think he is, and more importantly, if he isn’t then your problem is with Calvin!

   As for him coming from Westminster East, I don’t find that to be a problem, after all, its the content of the articles that I care about. Whether the article comes from John Hopkins or Westminster Philly, all I desire is faithfulness when seeking to understand a particular historical figure.

3. Dr. Clark,

   Coxhead seemed very clear about what Calvin was and wasn’t saying concerning free justification and (the subordinate and subsequent) works justification, and I did not get the sense that he was muddying the doctrine of justification in Calvin. All he was pointing out is that in Calvin’s comm on Ezekiel, Calvin’s docrtine of double justification (Cf. Institutes 3.17.1ff) was being taught. If Dr. Hart has a problem with that, it ought not be with Coxhead, it should be with Calvin! Let me know what you think when you read the articles.

   • Michael,

     If Calvin’s doctrine of double justification is so well-known why do we need a vocational OT scholar to explain it to us once again? Should I start writing academic essays on the Pentateuch?

   • Michael Lynch, if the doctrine of double justification in Calvin is so well known, then why didn’t Coxhead cite all of the secondary literature? This was in the historical/theological section of the WTJ. Plus, can you see some problem with a school that has has controversies over justification wanting to publish an article with this title? Even so, Coxhead was addressing specifically a controverted point between Karlberg and Lillback. That’s not exactly where the scholarship is at 16th Century Studies.

     • There goes Darryl being shallow again..

4. Dr. Clark,

   I am no expert on what good historical theology looks like, but I know what uneducated historical theology looks like and it appears to me that Dr. Hart is unaware that Calvin’s doctrine of double justification is standard fare in Calvin studies. That is all that Coxhead seemed to be pointing out in his two WTJ articles. Cf. Cornelis Venema’s dissertation Accepted and Renewed in Christ (pages 163-170) where he writes,

   “The relative inattention to this doctrine [double justification] and the tendency to interpret it exclusively in terms of Calvin’s polemic with alternative views [I.E. RCism] together represent a failure to recognize its importance in Calvin’s attempt to find a point of contact with some of the doctrinally reforming theologians of the Roman Catholic Church.” (163)

   • Michael,

     I don’t know what DGH knows about Calvin’s doctrine of double justification but I’ve done a fair bit of work on it.

     See:

     “The Benefits of Christ: Double Justification in Protestant Theology Before the Westminster Assembly,” Anthony T. Selvaggio, ed., The Faith Once Delivered: Celebrating the Legacy of Reformed Systematic Theology and the Westminster Assembly (Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne Spear). (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007), 107-34.

     See also:

     Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ. Rutherford Studies in Historical Theology, ed. David F. Wright (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005).

     I’ve not read the essay in question. Hope to get to it after term.

Comments are closed.