A Realist’s Review of Calvin on Osiander

by Ken Hamrick

John Calvin devoted an entire chapter of his Institutes^[1] to refuting Andreas Osiander.^[2] Osiander, a Lutheran theologian and professor at Königsberg University, stirred up quite a controversy in the 1550’s by teaching that men are justified neither by “mere imputation” nor by the human righteousness of Christ, but only by His “essential” (divine) righteousness, which becomes ours through a substantial union with the divine nature.^[3] Calvin calls this a “monstrosity” and a “delerious dream”^[4] and has much to say about it.

Calvin states, “[…]a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.” As a proponent of the consistent Realist view,^[5] I must point out that we are clothed not merely with the righteousness of Christ, but with Christ Himself (Rom. 13:14). Realism sees the need for justice and moral union to be grounded in a real union of being. Osiander seems to have had this truth in view, but missed the mark badly by discounting Christ’s human righteousness and denying the unity of Christ’s natures in redeeming us.

Continue reading →

Osiander’s Error & Realism’s Truth

by Ken Hamrick

A consistently realistic system of theology is one in which a parallel is found between our realistic union with Adam and our realistic union with Christ–the former being the ground of justice for our suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin, and the latter being the ground of justice for our being justified and saved by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. That is the position I have sought to put forward as the best understanding of Scripture.^[1]

One criticism of the consistent realistic system, which occasionally arises and must be addressed, is that such a system is a rehash of the sixteenth-century error of Andreas Osiander that was universally rejected by the Church. Timothy Wengert has written a very detailed book, entitled, Defending Faith,^[2] about the “reactions to and condemnations of [Osiander’s thought by] …Evangelical theologians of all sorts throughout the Holy Roman Empire… for the better part of the 1550’s.”^[3]

Continue reading →

A Realist’s Review of J.V. Fesko’s ‘Death in Adam, Life in Christ,’ Part 2

by Ken Hamrick

Continuing from Part 1

Fesko’s misrepresentations are disturbing. As I read his section on Augustine^[23], I thought maybe he had misunderstood Augustine when Fesko claimed that Realism was about a “biological” union in Adam—that Realism claimed a physical presence of all men in Adam.

However, after Fesko described the views of Shedd and Baird (the Realist School of the 19th century), and showed that he does indeed understand that the view is about the propagation of the soul and the “co-agency” of all men while in Adam^[24], he continues for the remainder of the book to refer to Realism as “biological” and “physical transmission”—not as additional to “spiritual” or “immaterial transmission” (which he ignores) but as if “physical” and “biological” accurately described the Realistic view. Misunderstanding Augustine might be excusable, but continuing the error even after showing a basic understanding of Shedd and Baird is inexcusable! Fesko says,

Continue reading →

A Realist’s Review of J.V. Fesko’s ‘Death in Adam, Life in Christ,’ Part 1

by Ken Hamrick

J. V. Fesko is Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary in California, and has written many books. I found this book^[1] to be substantive and thought provoking. It is well worth the reading—and I think it demands a response.

Fesko writes in the preface, “[…T]here are few, if any, books that treat both imputed guilt and righteousness. When it came to the history of the doctrine of imputation, there are hardly any monographs that treat the doctrine.” Fesko is a proponent of the modern Reformed view of Covenant (or, Federal) Theology, and defends that view against the main alternatives, historical and contemporary—including the Realistic view. While it is not his main purpose to engage the Realistic view, it is my main purpose in this article to address his engagement of that view, which I have found to be lacking.

Continue reading →

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Justification

By Ken Hamrick

We are justified by faith in Christ. But is that justification a mere legal fiction, as the Catholics object? While many look for the answer in the analogies of marriage and adoption, there is a more explicit answer: it is the spiritual union of Christ in the believer, effected by the Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit in justification is a badly neglected topic. To address this will require some review of history—and one that is not usually taught.

An Historical Overview
Over the course of the last several centuries, the importance of reality in Christian theology has been eclipsed by the importance of position. Imputation and justification have come to be seen as mere exercises within God’s mind. This eclipse has resulted from abandoning the idea of a real union of the moral nature of all men within Adam when he sinned, which was the realism that was implicitly contained in all the creeds and confessions of the early Reformed Church.

In this article, I will mostly be referring to Biblical realism—that Biblical principle of shared identity based on immaterial union, to which philosophical realism (with all its excesses) came to be applied. Biblical realism is the recognition of a shared personal identity, effected by immaterial (spiritual) union or singularity of immaterial origin, which is sufficient in itself to account for the headships of Adam and Christ. More broadly, Biblical realism is a paradigm from which God’s judgments and justice are dependent upon substantial reality—a reality which He may sovereignly change but cannot justly ignore.

Continue reading →

Realism & Retroactive Identity in Christ

By Ken Hamrick

John Murray’s treatment of sanctification, particularly his essay, “The Agency in Definitive Sanctification,” makes some surprising inroads toward grasping the believer’s retroactive, realistic identification with Christ.[1] He does not go as far as to acknowledge that the reality of the spiritual union of Christ in the believer brings a title to all that Christ accomplished just as if the believer had accomplished it. Instead, he prefers to call it a mysterious “divine constitution.” But he does recognize the “tension” between the historical objectivity of Christ dying and rising again, and the fact of the believer subjectively dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ—and that the two are often spoken of in the New Testament as if they were one and the same events. The believer did not die to sin until coming to Christ in faith; and yet, the power of that dying to sin is firmly grounded in the once-and-for-all quality of Christ’s death—as if the historically objective death of Christ somehow became an historically objective fact of the believer’s life once he came to Christ.

Continue reading →

Does Your Anchor Hold Within the Veil?

Also posted at SBC Open Forum and at SBC Voices.

By Ken Hamrick

Heb. 6:19, “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil…” (NKJV)
Col. 1:27, “To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (NKJV)
1 Cor. 6:19, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (NKJV)

To hear that someone we thought of as a brother in the Lord—a pastor, a teacher of sound doctrine and a contender for the faith—has now renounced his faith… well, it weighs on my soul, as I’m sure it does with many of you. So we bring this burden before the Lord, praying for this man’s salvation. But we can’t help asking with exasperation, how could this happen?! Continue reading “Does Your Anchor Hold Within the Veil?” →