Calvin: Participation?

[GTMOPC]

I've been reading some stuff by J. Todd Billings particularly "Calvin, Participation, and the Gift." He also has a brief essay on his thesis in "Partakers of the Divine Nature" by Christensen and Wittung.

Is anyone familiar with his work concerning a doctrine of deification in Calvin? I found his argument quite convincing though I'm not qualified to judge whether he is right or not. He seems to have done his homework in my opinion.

Most importantly he makes a point that what Calvin says about participation is not what the Eastern Orthodox Church says, either patristically, late Byzantine, or in the modern day. That's important because I don't think Billings has any ecumenical motivation, like the Helsinki boys do with their Luther research.

I don't know whether to embrace what Billings is telling me or to be a bit cautious. I'd like to hear some educated opinions on him as a scholar, his exegesis, his knowledge of Calvin, and what that all means in the light of scripture.

I don't want to go astray if his work is wrong somehow. I really like what he has to say and need to know if what he's saying is viable.

Also I've found another similar article here by someone else that may help.

Any opinions, advice, help, or correction would be greatly appreciated!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Todd's account of Calvin's doctrine of participation is better than many others but there are cautions to remember.

There is a lot of nonsense being peddled in academic circles today on Luther and Calvin and "union" and participation or even deification. One reason for this is the relatively recent opening of the Eastern Orthodox church to the West (and vice versa) after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Another is the exclusive turn to "relational" categories to explain everything and the virtual rejection of legal/forensic categories to explain Calvin. In other words "union" is hip and hot and so is "participation" in the deity.

There is also a desire, on the part of many Calvin scholars, to rehabilitate Calvin in one way or another. In the 19th century Calvin became the stern theologian of the decree. In the late modern period, there is very little sympathy for ideas and doctrines that were basic to Calvin (e.g. the strict distinction between the Creator/creature, reprobation etc). Thus he is rehabilitated by being made into a theologian of relationship with God or, in a couple of cases, a theologian of personal, existential crisis (e.g. Selinger and Bouwsma where Calvin is hardly recognizable). This is not to say that he didn't teach something like this but many of those writing on this topic do not have a strictly historical agenda. They have a theological agenda and they need Calvin as a witness for their agenda.

The Finns have attempted to do something like this to Luther on justification for ecumenical/dogmatic reasons so that he's no longer a theologian of imputed righteousness but union with Christ and deification. Fortunately the Finns are transparent about their agenda.

I interact with the Calvin lit in an essay in this vol and respond to the Finnish view of Luther here:

"Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 70 (2006): 269–310

 

[GTMOPC]

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

Concerning the Finnish Luther; I'd jumped on their work a few years ago naively. After reading concerns through those sympathetic to their work, that the reformed folk were accusing them of making Osiander's mistakes, I saw their error. It is fortunate that they aren't hiding their agenda at least, even if it does really skew their reasoning.

Your point on the relational/forensic issue is well taken. I will try to keep that in mind as I study this topic. Billings is great on this point then I guess since he points out Calvin uses the forensic nature of justification to lay the groundwork for any further consideration of participation. The gift/gratitude idea I think he uses.

I am always afraid when reading recent scholarship of this kind for the fact that I think maybe they are painting reformers like Luther and Calvin in a way they never intended to be seen. That's why I wanted to get some expert advice from those here on the PB who are qualified to discern those things!

Thanks for the material you suggested I'll check it out! Thanks again for the help!