The Upper Register

Seed of David, Son of God (Rom 1:3-4), Part 1

Romans 1:3-4 reads as follows:

“… concerning his Son,
     born of the seed of David
          according to the flesh;
     marked out Son of God with power
          according to the Spirit of holiness
               by the resurrection of the dead,
Jesus Christ our Lord” (translation mine).

This has always been a fascinating passage for me. I was fascinated by it because it seemed to be a proof text for the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. The fact that Jesus is fully divine and fully human is easy to demonstrate from a large number of passages throughout the NT. But it was great to have one text where both natures are affirmed together.

The Chalcedonian interpretation of this text has a strong backing in the Reformed tradition. It is the view articulated by Calvin and Charles Hodge in their commentaries on Romans. And in an essay defending the deity of Christ, B. B. Warfield said that Paul in this text is using

“language so pregnant, so packed with implications, as to carry us into the heart of the great problem of the two-natured person of Christ” (TCTPP, 78).

He added that

“Paul is not here distinguishing times and contrasting two successive modes of our Lord’s being. He is distinguishing elements in the constitution of our Lord’s person, by virtue of which He is at one and the same time both the Messiah and the Son of God” (TCTPP, 84).

But when I was exposed to Geerhardus Vos’s interpretation, as mediated by Richard Gaffin in his book Resurrection and Redemption (R&R), I became convinced away from this view to the view that the text is really talking about the two stages in the life of Christ. My youthful desire to use this text to buttress my systematic beliefs about Christology gave way to the growing awareness of Paul’s eschatological and redemptive-historical concerns.

It just seemed more likely (in Vos’s words) that

“the reference is not to two coexisting sides in the constitution of the Savior, but to two successive stages in his life” (EAPCS, 229 [1912] = 104 [1980]).

And after Vos and Gaffin pointed out that Hodge and Warfield took “the Spirit of Holiness” as the divine nature of Christ (rather than as the Holy Spirit), their folly was evident. Hodge and Warfield had committed the sin so typical of systematic theologians – they had taken a verse out of context and used it as a proof-text to support a theological position that may be true enough but just not what this verse is talking about. Obviously we should never expect Paul to make a timeless, systematic-theological statement explicitly affirming the human and divine natures of Christ. The prepositional phrases, kata sarka and kata pneuma, denote not Christ’s two ontological natures but the two historical stages of his incarnate state:  his sarkic existence, which he entered at the incarnation, and his pneumatic existence, which he entered at his resurrection.

But recently I have begun to develop doubts about the Vos-Gaffin view. I'm not saying that I totally reject the view, and I think it contains a very important truth that can be redeemed, but I wonder about parts of it. I’ll explain my doubts in future posts, but before I do that, the next two posts will be quotes from Hodge and Warfield, and then from Vos and Gaffin.

EAPCS = Geerhardus Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 91-125. Originally published in Biblical and Theological Studies by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 209-259.

R&R = Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (2nd ed.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987).

TCTPP = B. B. Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” in The Person and Work of Christ (ed. Samuel G. Craig; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 73-90.

"The highest of all missionary motives"

In the opening to his epistle to the Roman Christians, Paul writes that he has "received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake" (Rom 1:5 NASB). That is an interesting phrase, "for His name's sake." The aim of Paul's missionary activity among the Gentiles is to bring them to the obedience which consists in faith, for "faith is properly that by which we obey the Gospel" (Calvin). And he desires that the Gentiles come to faith in Christ for the sake of Christ's name. John Stott comments:

"Why did Paul desire to bring the nations to the obedience of faith? It was for the sake of the glory and honour of Christ's name ... If ... God desires every knee to bow to Jesus and every tongue to confess him, so should we. We should be 'jealous' (as Scripture sometimes puts it) for the honour of his name -- troubled when it remains unknown, hurt when it is ignored, indignant when it is blasphemed, and all the time anxious and determined that it shall be given the honour and glory which are due to it. The highest of all missionary motives is neither obedience to the Great Commission (important as that is), nor love for sinners who are alienated and perishing (strong as that incentive is, especially when we contemplate the wrath of God, verse 18), but rather zeal -- burning and passionate zeal -- for the glory of Jesus Christ."

[John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God's Good News for the World (The Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 53.]

Must Covenant Children Have a Conversion Experience?

This is not an ivory-tower question for me. Misty and I have three children, ages 13, 10 and 4. They were all baptized in good Presbyterian fashion in their infancy and Misty and I have raised them and treated them as Christians, as members of the household of faith. But the question arises, Is it not necessary for them to be converted? Doesn't the Bible insistently and repeatedly command "all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)? See also Isa 55:6-7; Ezek 33:11; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 3:19 -- to list only a few of the many verses that use terms for "turning" from sin, "repentance," and so on. Indeed, repentance is said to "lead to life" (Acts 11:18) and "to salvation" (2 Cor 7:10), which suggests that conversion is vital, perhaps even necessary for salvation.

Yet, on the other hand, the Bible also makes clear that covenant children are to be treated as saved, as members of the body of Christ. For example, Paul addresses the children of the church at Ephesus, right alongside the husbands and wives, masters and slaves, as those who can be exhorted to respond to the imperatives of the gospel in light of union with Christ: "children obey your parents in the Lord" (Eph 6:1).  

So which is it? Do covenant children need to have a conversion experience or are they to be treated as those who already enjoy salvation?

Part of the solution is to make a distinction between regeneration and conversion. Regeneration is God's secret operation, at the subconscious level, by which he gives the elect a new heart that is capable of repenting of sin and exercising faith in Christ. Conversion, to use Berkhof's definition, is

"that act of God whereby He causes the regenerated sinner, in his conscious life, to turn to Him in repentance and faith" (p. 483). "The principle of the new life implanted in regeneration passes into the conscious life in conversion" (p. 491).

If we accept this distinction between regeneration and conversion, it leads to a number of important but often overlooked implications:

First, regeneration is prior to conversion, and conversion follows regeneration. Thus, it is possible for a child to be regenerated in the womb, and to experience conversion or the evidence of conversion, namely, conscious repentance and faith, at a later date.

Second, regeneration is absolutely necessary for salvation, but conversion is not. Berkhof writes, perhaps somewhat suprisingly:

"The Bible speaks in absolute terms of the necessity of regeneration; not so of the necessity of conversion. It tells us plainly that, 'Except a man be born again (anew, or, from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God,' John 3:3, but does not speak of the need of conversion in the same general way, which allows of no exceptions ... The expressed or implied exhortations to turn about, found in Scripture, come only to those to whom they are addressed and do not necessarily mean that every one must pass through a conscious conversion, in order to be saved" (pp. 490-91). 

Why is conversion not spoken of in Scripture as being absolutely necessary like regeneration? Perhaps one reason is because ...

"those who die in infancy must be regenerated, in order to be saved, but cannot very well experience conversion, a conscious turning from sin unto God" (p. 491). 

Third, if regeneration is at the subconscious level and then passes into the conscious life in conversion, i.e., in the form of conscious turning from sin and trusting in Christ, then it is best to treat covenant children as regenerated and then to expect that they will experience growing evidence of conversion, that is, repentance and faith, as they mature.

Fourth, regeneration is a one-time, instantaneous, sovereign act of God, whereby the heart is changed from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, but conversion can be experienced repeatedly throughout life as the fruit of regeneration. For example, Jesus said of Peter, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32 ESV). See also the exhortations to the seven churches of Asia (Rev 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19). Indeed, the Christian life is one of continual repentance and putting death our sinful deeds and desires by the Spirit in union with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:11-14; 8:13; Gal 5:24; Col 3:5).

It is unreasonable to expect covenant children to have one definite conversion experience, as is more common among those converted in adulthood. It is more likely that our covenant children will experience a series of critical stages in their Christian growth where their regeneration manifests itself in moments of more or less stronger awareness of their sinfulness, a desire to turn from sin to God, and a sense of coming to Christ in faith. A crisis conversion

"can hardly be looked for ... in the lives of those who, like John the Baptist and Timothy, served the Lord from early youth. At the same time, conversion is necessary in the case of all adults in the sense that its elements, namely, repentance and faith must be present in their lives. This means that they must in some form experience the essence of conversion" (p. 491).

In other words, the consequence or fruit of regeneration, namely, repentance and faith, must be present. 

My two older children sometimes ask me when they were regenerated and converted. I tell them that I don't know for sure, but I suspect they were regenerated when they were in their mommy's womb or in infancy, and that we have both seen and hope to see growing evidence of their regeneration in the form of further increases of repentance and faith as they get older.

[All quotes from L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).]

The Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Calvin teaches that the authority of Scripture does not rest on the church's decision but on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The elect, whose minds have been enlightened by the Spirit, know that the Scripture is God's word.

"Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste" (Institutes I.vii.2).

To those who demand that the inspiration of the prophets be proved by reason, Calvin replies that ...

"the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit" (I.vii.4).

Therefore, the same Spirit who inspired the prophets and the apostles to communicate God's word to us must also penetrate our hearts to seal and confirm our faith and enlighten our minds to receive the Scriptures as God's word.

"Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured — as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it — that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate" (I.vii.5).

Evidences, arguments, and rational proofs can only take us so far and in fact do not provide full assurance. But by the Spirit's inner testimony we arrive at a spiritual certainty that is "superior to human judgment."

"We feel a divine energy living and breathing in [the Scripture] — an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge" (I.vii.5).

Therefore, the best way to feel this "divine energy" in Scripture and to be convinced of its divine authority is to read the profane authors and then to turn to the word of God.

"Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man ... Those who feel [the works of the prophets] insipid must be absolutely devoid of taste" (I.viii.1-2).

Does this mean that evidences and arguments are worthless? Far from it, but they must be used in a subordinate role.

"These [evidences and arguments], however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith" (I.viii.13).

[All quotes from the Beveridge translation.]

"What is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture"

I've read many extended parts of Calvin's Institutes over the years, especially his chapters on justification and on the sacraments. But I've never read the whole thing from start to finish. So I've decided to read it this year using the 1-volume Beveridge translation in the nice edition published recently by Hendrickson for the quincentennial of his birth.

There are so many great passages - perhaps I'll quote some here on this blog as they strike me. Here is one that I enjoyed. In his discussion of the doctrine that God uses the reprobate as instruments in his hand to perform his will (yet in such a way that God is not the author of sin), Calvin writes:

"As I have hitherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatize what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretense of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God -- to say, for instance, 'I think otherwise' -- 'I would not have this subject touched'? But if they openly blaspheme, what will they gain by assaulting heaven? Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine. But what the Spirit declared of old by the mouth of David (Ps 51:6), they will feel by experience to be true -- God will overcome when he is judged. David indirectly rebukes the infatuation of those whose license is so unbridled, that from their groveling spot of earth they not only plead against God, but arrogate to themselves the right of censuring him. At the same time, he briefly intimates that the blasphemies which they belch forth against heaven, instead of reaching God, only illustrate his justice, when the mists of their calumnies are dispersed. Even our faith, because founded on the sacred word of God, is superior to the whole world, and is able from its height to look down upon such mists" (Institutes I.xviii.3). 

I love Calvin's confidence in the "clear and unambiguous" teaching of the Word of God. Those who assail his doctrine, assail the Word of God. They do so from "their groveling spot of earth," while he stands upon the heights "to look down upon such mists." Our faith is founded upon the sacred Word of God.