The
Holiness of the Cross
p8
All doctrine is generated by the cross, since apart from the cross we don't know
God at all.
All doctrine is seen through the lens of the cross, since knowledge of the
Redeemer precedes, e.g., knowledge of the Creator.
Therefore, in
speaking of the "sovereignty" or "almightiness" of God we
need to redefine the concept in terms of the cross.
w.r.t.
"Almighty":
1] the word is used marginally in
script.
2] God's power isn't a projection of
ours.
3] sheer power, undifferentiated
power, unqualified power, is what script. means by "evil."
4] power is the capacity to achieve
purpose;
a.
What is God's purpose?
b.
How does God achieve this purpose?
5]
among much else, the cross means there
is no limit to God's vulnerability; the resurrection, that
there is no limit
to the effectiveness of God's vulnerability.
6] the risen, ascended, triumphant,
ruling Lord suffers still: "Rich wounds, yet visible above".
7] it must always be remembered that
God is primordially Person. Therefore
his power is the effectiveness of his person, which person is characterized by
suffering vulnerability.
God (like any person) is never to be "thingified."
Calvin: God's person is found in all God's acts.
8] how many times does Calvin speak
of God's "sovereignty" in the Institutes?
None.
9] we must gain our understanding of
God's holiness, then, from the cross.
p11
The Creator and the Redeemer are one and the same.
i.
no Marcionism
ii.
if Creator and Redeemer aren't the same, then
it isn't the creation that's been redeemed.
iii.
the Fall never effaces the goodness of the
creation or the Imago Dei, however defaced these might be.
Defaced, these must be restored.
iv.
in light of #iii the Gnesio-Lutherans (Matthias
Illyricus Flacius) are wrong
p11
We preach not "Christ" but "Christ crucified".
See Ernst Kaesemann, "For and Against a Theology of the
Resurrection", Jesus Means Freedom.
p12
We don't begin with the cross and then leave it behind.
See Luther, theologia crucis.
p20-21
Willis insists on the continuity of the two testaments.
See handout.
p29
Willis insists that the extra Calvinisticum explicates the unity of the
two natures in Christ. He
recalls the four Chalcedonian adverbs:
inconfuse
without
confusion
immutabiliter
without change
against the monophysites
indivise
without division
inseparabiliter
without separation
against the Nestorians
p32
Willis insists that the extra Calvinisticum protects against
1.
exaggerated [I'd say "one-sided"]
immanence: the Word became flesh and thereby forfeited his transcendence
2.
exaggerated immanence: in rightly remaining
transcendent, the Word was never actually, really, truly made flesh.
The extra
Calvinisticum is needed today when people
a.
one-sidedly speak of Immanence -- e.g.,
theologies that incorrectly identify God with our concerns and griefs
b.
one-sidedly speak of Transcendence -- e.g.,
theologies that remove God utterly from our concerns and griefs
c.
separate Transcendence and Immanence.
Immanence
exaggerated: pan(en)theism.
Transcendence "
: atheism (since God is inaccessible and unknowable.)
With all the
above the gospel is lost.