Liberalism

"[W]e must remember that liberalism is not primarily a rejection of the supernatural; it is a reconfiguration of the nature of Christianity in such a way as to highlight religious psychology or experience and downplay or marginalize doctrine" (Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 142).

Praise

"Historically, one could make the argument that Christian theology as a whole is one long, extended reflection upon the meaning and significance of that most basic doxological declaration, "Jesus is Lord!" and thus an attempt to provide a framework for understanding Christian praise" (Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 135).

Verbose Introductions

On my desk there is a manuscript from 1987 for use at Calvin Theological Seminary; it is an Introduction to Systematic Theology - 411 Prolegomena by Fred H. Klooster. Including the Appendices it is just over 300 pages in length.

Consider this: "Preoccupation with method is like clearing your throat: it can go on for only so long before you lose your audience." (Jeffrey Stout)

Reading Notes: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1987.

This book is great. It was highly enjoyable reading it again front-to-back. On the surface, it is about Christian epistemology—the theology of knowledge, but on another level JMF is clearly trying to stir up our Christian imaginations (I will elaborate later).

In his Preface, JMF says that this book was written as a text for his seminarian course called The Christian Mind, and that his pedagogical approach to the subject “begins with a brief introduction to the Reformed faith, which is followed by a unit on the Word of God, and ends with discussions of apologetics . . . In between those two units—Word of God and problems of apologetics—comes a section on the theology of knowledge . . . which is the subject of this volume” (xv).

Once you strip away all the appendixes, the book's presentation is threefold and straightforward: Part One discusses the objects of knowledge (What do we know?); Part Two discusses the justification of knowledge (What right do we have to believe what we do?); and Part Three discusses the methods of knowledge (How do we obtain knowledge?).

I found this early quote helpful for a high-level understanding of JMF's book: “The knowledge of God [What do we know?] is a human response to God's Word and is justified [What right do we have to believe what we do?] by its conformity thereunto” (4).

Throughout the book the “biblical concept of divine lordship” is a sustained theme, which JMF summarizes with a triad: God's control | authority | personal presence (17). In light of this, in answering the question What do we know? JMF argues that:

Knowledge is under God's control. First, our knowledge of God is always based on revelation. In our coming to know God, it is He who takes the initiative. . . . Furthermore—at least in the postfall context—this revelation is gracious; we do not deserve it, but God gives it as a 'favor' to us as part of His redemptive mercy . . . Thus, the origin of knowledge is trinitarian: The Father knows all and reveals truth to us by the grace of His Son through the work of the Spirit in our hearts. Note how each person of the Trinity is involved in the knowing process . . . Thus it is all of God, all of Grace. We know God because He has first known us as His children” (42).

This knowledge (given to us as a favor of God's redemptive mercy) is subject to God's authority, therefore, it “is inevitably an obedient knowledge,” e.g., “there is a 'circular' relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. . . . It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true that if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly” (43).

So . . . 

In summary, 'knowledge of God' essentially refers to a person's friendship (or enmity) with God. That friendship presupposes knowledge in other senses—knowledge of facts about God, knowledge of skills in righteous living, and so forth. It therefore involves a covenantal response of the whole person to God in all areas of life, either in obedience or in disobedience. It involves, most focally, a knowledge of God's lordship—of His control, His authority, and His present reality (48).

JMF throughout the book is obviously talking about The Christian Mind, however, he is advocating that theologians must learn to analyze before reacting (30), and that an important element of that process, in light of the biblical concept of divine lordship, is that our our beliefs must cohere with Scripture . . . and if they don't, then Scripture has a “veto-power over beliefs that are inconsistent with its teachings” (128). Regarding the question How do we obtain knowledge?, JMF's conclusion is that Scripture is the ultimate justification of all human knowledge (129).

On the one hand, we need to remember what I quoted earlier, that human knowledge subject to God's authority is inevitably an obedient knowledge, while on the other hand, we must remember JMF's conclusion above, that Scripture is the ultimate justification of human knowledge. If we balance those two thoughts it is obvious that the biblical concept of knowledge is never merely propositional ascent. Therefore, Christian epistemology (the theology of knowledge) is a theology that is defined as “the application of the Word by persons to all areas of life” (81) JMF says this means “A person does not understand Scripture, Scripture tells us, unless he can apply it to new situations, to situations not even envisaged in the original text” (84).

So, according to JMF, if one warrants that theology = application, then there is no dichotomy between meaning and application. In light of this, JMF's subordinate aim makes sense—he is attempting to stir up Christian imaginations because “we shall see that it is arbitrary to insist that theology be written in a formal, academic style. Rather, theologians ought to make broad use of human language—poetry, drama, exclamation, song, parable, symbol—as Scripture does” (85). But why this JMF-insistence that we make broad use of human language? Well, because JMF believes that “On a Christian basis we must say that God made human language for His own purposes, the chief of which was to relate us to himself. Human language is (perhaps even chiefly, or “primarily”) a medium by which we can talk to one another about God” (35). Since JMF believes that “Imagination has much to do with any attempt to do things in a new or different way” (340), it would seem that JMF is urging up-and-coming theologians to “creatively” talk to others and one another about God.

This imaginative way of doing theology made me think of some contemporary authors: Peter J. Leithart (Deep Exegesis), James K. A Smith (Desiring the Kingdom and Imagining the Kingdom), and David Bentley Hart (The Devil and Pierre Gernet: Stories). I especially thought of Hart's work, since in the Author's Apologia he says, “I have written stories and poems all of my life, or at least since fairly early childhood, whereas I conceived an interest in philosophical theology only when, as a young man, I went searching for God; and then, as things turned out, I came to conclude that God is no more likely (and probably a great deal less likely) to be found in theology than in poetry or fiction” (ix).

JMF is a top-shelf theologian. So, obviously I was challenged (even convicted) by a great deal of what he had to say, e.g., his consistent call “to do theology” with an irenic posture. However, I was most edified when he would mention the hindmost perspective of his triadic summary of divine lordship—the presence of God, e.g., “Thus God's lordship is a deeply personal and practical concern. God is not a vague abstract principle or force but a living person who fellowships with His people” (17).

Creed has "genuine authority as a privileged interpretation of Scripture."

"That the [Nicene] Creed says x is sufficient reason to assert that x is true, theologically" (Stephen R. Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology, 161).

Devotional Discernment

Rev. Lane Keister's recent musings on exercising discernment regarding one's devotional reading.

We do not want Faulkner ["stream of consciousness"] theology. . . . So read books that will make you stretch. Read books where you will not automatically understand everything that is said, but where you have to grow in order to understand. Read books where you might need a dictionary of theology terms handy. Read Calvin’s Institutes, Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, and get what you can out of it, which is a lot more than you might think. Then ask questions so that you will grow. If you are not growing, then your students won’t grow either. So work through that tough bit of theology with a pipe between your teeth and a pencil in your hand! You might find your heart singing the praises of God more often than you might think.

All that to say, I haven't read either Berkhof's ST or Shedd's DT. Yikes!

The Debate of Nye and Ham: Reading Notes

A week ago Bill Nye (you know, The Science Guy) and Ken Ham (of AIG = Answers in Genesis) held a public debate at the Creation Museum. Kudos to all involved. The cultural pot has been stirred, indeed. There were several hundred-thousand viewers who watched the debate live via YouTube--you can go here to view the entire debate, complements of AIG. Since last week there has been a lot of post-debate fallout: blog posts here, newspaper articles there, post-debate interviews online and TV. For example:

• Articles at Ars Technica
• Nate Anderson's long-feature survey of the debate.
• Ars' visual tour of the Creation Museum.
• Eric Bangeman's initial (short) opinion of the debate.
• At Mashable -- a 4 minute recap of the debate.
• At BaylyBlog -- Ben Burlingham sketches a Christian approach to witnessing to Scientists.
• At his blog: Dr. Ken Schenck sadly reflects on the debate.
• At his blog: Dr. Albert Mohler, who had a front-row seat at the debate, shares his thoughts.
• At reformation 21: Pastor Rick Phillips provides some excellent post-debate observations.

Happy reading!

Diligence in Theology

Theology is controversial (you are making statements about God, anthropology, origin of the universe, morality and ethics, etc.), such that it is easy to be misunderstood. If you are going to speak-theology, then you need to put forth your best effort to do so with clarity, i.e., as the idiom goes,  you need to wax eloquent. However, if you're going to listen to someone, you too have a duty to be fair and charitable and put forth an effort to understand them in the best light possible.

Theology is controversial and it is hard work (it requires diligence), e.g., one ought to be nuanced when discussing faith and obedience (works).

Needing to speak with clarity regarding faith and obedience can be illustrated in the writings of William Ames, Puritan born in England in the late 1500s. In his writings, Ames emphasized the "will" of the Christian. He was passionate about maintaining the kinship between Christian thought and action. Because of this emphasis on the "will" of Christians, some (i.e., Kuyper, Kendall) argued that Ames departed "from the mainstream of Reformed Theology" (Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology - Doctrine for Life, 54). This, however, is not an accurate portrayal, as Beeke and Jones contend, Ames was well within the mainstream of Reformed Theology, but to gather this you must consider the covenantal framework within which Ames emphasized the role of the "will" of Christians.

But Ames, as a faithful son of the Reformation, continued to emphasize that "the final dependence of faith, as it designates the act of believing, is on the operation and inner persuasion of the Holy Spirit" ([The Marrow of Theology] 1.3.12.). . . . The key to properly combining sovereign grace with freely given faith and responsible obedience was to be found in the context of God's covenant. Under the covenant of grace, Ames expounded the harmony of faith and obedience, the gospel of Christ and the Ten Commandments, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Rather than isolating Ames's statements about the will and crying "voluntarism," we must interpret each of his teachings in the light of his whole theology -- a Reformed theology of heart religion and humble obedience" (54-55)

Theological statements never occur within a vacuum - they always occur within a context that also needs to be examined and accounted for in order to understand the theological statements. Understanding a person's theology, like most things worth doing, takes effort and requires hard work. Like the philosopher Spinoza said, "All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

Puritan Hermeneutics and Exegesis

Excerpt from the conclusion to the second chapter ("Puritan Hermeneutics and Exegesis") in A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life by Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones.

Thus, their [Puritan authors like John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, John Howe, Stephen Charnock, etc.] covenantal reading of the Bible, whereby history is divided into two basic covenants (i.e., works and grace) meant that they were consciously reading the Scriptures with a Christ-centered lens, which was seen in their use of typology and, at times, allegory. They rejected the many "sense" of Scripture (i.e., the so-called quadriga), but their writings certainly show that they were often keen to press home the "fuller sense" of certain passages, which may have multiple layers of meanings and was a legitimate application of the literal meaning (sensus literalis). Their view that the Scriptures were internally consistent and that most theological truths had to be gathered out of more than one place in the Bible made the basic principles of the analogy of faith and "good and necessary consequence" [WCF. I.] an indispensable part of their hermeneutic. These principles of interpretation are important, but if reason alone tries to make sense of the mystery of the gospel, a Christian will forever run into error and heresy. Only a Spirit-wrought, supernatural faith will allow a Christian to believe that God had a Son as old as Himself! And yet to come to formulate such a truth a host of interpretative techniques were required (40).

Redeemed From Curse of the Law

"The curse of the law. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). The curse of the law is its penal sanction. This is essentially the wrath or curse of God, the displeasure which rests upon every infraction of the law's demand. "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10). Without deliverance from this curse there could be no salvation. It is from this curse that Christ has purchased his people and the price of the purchase was that he himself became a curse. He became so identified with the curse resting on his people that the whole of it in all its unrelieved intensity became his. That curse he bore and that curse he exhausted. That was the price paid for this redemption and the liberty secured for the beneficiaries is that there is no more curse" (John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, 44).

God Revealing Godself: The Heart of All Theology

"[A]t the heart of all theology for Luther is God and how one knows God; or perhaps better said, one must start all theology with understanding how it is that God reveals Godself" (Thomas J. Davis, This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought, 58).

Two Parts of Gospel Communication

"Christianity is enshrined in the life: but it is proclaimed by the lips. If there is a failure in either respect the gospel cannot be communicated" (Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 194).

###

One of my pastors back in Indiana use to say, "You need to wear your theology." In the quote above, Michael Green is saying the same thing. There are two parts to Gospel Communication: 1) Life and life-style and works -- aka, one's agenda/what you do, and 2) the words and speech that dance on your lips -- aka, one's creed and confession/what you proclaim. That is, you need to wear/live what you believe (your theology). Therefore, Gospel Communication consists of two parts, and the twain ought not to be separated.

Mysticism

"Mysticism is esoteric atheism. But atheism still carries the banners and laurels of the work of liberation which is their common purpose" (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. I.2, 322).

Enjoying Doctrine

Spurgeon describing how "wise men deal with the great doctrines of the gospel" -- "they will not make them the themes of angry controversy, but of profitable use. To fight over a doctrine is sorry waste of time, but to live in the quiet enjoyment of it is the truest wisdom" (Ed. David Otis Fuller, Spurgeon's Sermon Illustrations, 32).

Christian Presence

"In the fourth century, with the conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity and the steady growth of the church, the relation of Christianity to the society underwent a gradual but momentous transformation. Constantine introduced laws that made Sunday a day of rest, thereby creating a new calendar and reordering the life of society to make space for Christian worship. He advanced legislation that discouraged the exposure of infants by indigent parents and saw to it that the public fisc would provide food and clothing to rear abandoned children. He built churches, not only in the new Christian city of Constantinople and the old capital, Rome, but also in Jerusalem, a city that would acquire potent symbolic significance in the public consciousness. As these new buildings displaced the temples built by former emperors the plan of cities began to reflect the presence of Christianity in the life of the empire. The most prominent public building became the church, and to this day one will find a church on the central public square of European cities" (Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God, 199-200).

LOL: Carl Trueman on Barthianism

Read this hilarious quote at William B. Evan's personal blog and just had to share it.

“Look, if I wanted a pretentious and incomprehensibly abstract theology with an impeccable record of emptying churches, I’d convert to Barthianism, wouldn’t I?” (Carl Trueman)

The Pagan Core of Natural Law Theory

Debates on Natural Law seem to be the rage these days: David Bentley Hart set off a chain reaction after sharing his thoughts on Natural Law at First Things . . . replies on the Internets came from far and near, e.g.,  Edward Feser, Alan Jacobs, Peter Leithart, Peter Escalante . . . and Hart even circled back around to share his additional thoughts.

So, here is my contribution to the Natural Law noise on the Internets: it is an extended excerpt from Ray Sutton's magnificent That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant:

Let us not be misled: natural law theory rests on a self-conscious belief in the possibility of judicial neutrality. Civil law must be neutral-ethically, politically, and religiously. Civil law must permit equal time for Satan. There are Christians who believe in neutrality; they send their children to public schools that rest legally on a doctrine of educational neutrality. There are also Christians who think abortion should be legal. This belief rests on the belief that killing a baby and not killing a baby are morally equivalent acts; God is neutral regarding the killing of babies. That such Christians should also adopt a theory of judicial and political neutrality is understandable. But what is not easily understandable is that Christians who recognize the absurdity of the myth of neutrality in education and abortion cling to just this doctrine in the area of civil law and politics. This is a form of what Rushdoony calls intellectual schizophrenia. 

It is only the Christian who has the law of God itself written in his heart, what the author of Hebrews calls a new covenant- the internalization of the old covenant (Heb. 8:7-13). For a Christian to appeal to a hypothetical universally shared reason with fallen humanity is to argue that the Fall of man did not radically affect man's mind, including his logic. It is to argue that this unaffected common logic can overcome the effects of sin. Anyone who believes this needs to read the works of Cornelius Van Til and R. J. Rushdoony. 

The appeal to natural law theory is pagan to the core. It is in some cases a self-conscious revival of pagan Greek philosophy. Natural law theory is totally opposed to God's law. Sadly, we find throughout Western history that compromised though well-intentioned Christian philosophers have appealed to this Stoic concept of natural law in support of some "neutral" system of social and political order. Thomas Aquinas is the most famous of these scholars, but the same mistake is common today. Roger Williams appealed to natural law as the basis of the creation of a supposedly religiously neutral civil government in the 1630s in New England. This is the appeal of just about every Christian who refuses to accept Biblical law as the legal foundation of political order and civil righteousness. The only alternative to "one law" - whether "natural" or Biblical- is judicial pluralism, a constant shifting from principle to principle, the rule of expediency. It is the political theory of polytheism (184-185).

Theological Words (Work in Progress)

I am reading through Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia's original edition (1991) of A Concise Dictionary of Theology, so this post will be a work in progress--as I encounter theological words, central meanings, etc., that are of interest to me, I will append to this post.

Anakephalaiosis (Gr. [Greek] "recapitulation" or "summing up"). A term which in its verbal form refers to Christ bringing into unity everything in the universe (Eph. 1:10). Along these lines, such church fathers as St. Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) presented Christ as the head of the Church who fulfills God's design in creation and redemptive history (CDT, 9).

Ars Moriendi (Lat. "art of dying"). Late medieval teaching on the way Christians ought to face death. Books on this topic, e.g., the work of Jean Gerson (1363-1429), enjoyed great popularity and influenced the portrayal of death in art (CDT, 19). 

### Reflection - May 3, 2013 ###

This dictionary was designed particularly for Roman Catholics. I knew that when I began reading it.

Reading a Romish theological dictionary, however, has been illuminating. For one thing, it has further solidified my conviction that Roman Catholicism has institutionalized the theological inventions of man, that is, they have theologized at points a worldly and secular spirit. All one needs to do, in order to be convinced of the legalistic and ecclesiastical-fanaticism of Roman Catholicism, is read a few pages from a Romish dictionary. The best critiques of these inventions, that I have read, are John Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church (A.D. 1544), John Knox's A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry (A.D. 1550), and William Cunningham's Historical Theology (A.D. 1862).

The great distinguishing fact of the Reformation was the revival and restoration of sound doctrine, of true principles taught in the sacred Scriptures in regard to the worship of God and the way of a sinner's salvation.... 

Protestants have usually received, as scriptural and orthodox the doctrinal decisions of the first four general councils, and even of the fifth and sixth; though in all of them increasingly, -- and especially in the last two, -- many deviations from scriptural primitive practice with respect to the government and worship of the church were countenanced, and too much evidence was given of the growing influence of a worldly and secular spirit in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs (Historical Theology, pp. 461, 465). 

 All of that having been said, personally I am very optimistic about the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because Jesus is Lord and Scripture is true. Peter J. Leithart wrote an article a number of years ago titled "Why Protestants Still Protest," and his concluding words have provided great comfort (and optimistic anticipation). He said,

If the Reformers were wrong about sola Scriptura, they were wrong too about the source of errors in the Catholic Church. For myself, I stand with Calvin, who, I am certain, would be as heartened as I to hear the recent calls from Roman Catholic leaders to reaffirm the centrality of the gospel, Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Given even a modest open door, the Word of God can take care of itself; it never, Scripture says, returns void. Though Protestants believe that Roman Catholic teaching continues to veil the Christ of the gospel, we know that God has a habit of rending veils.

 

The Psalms: Doxology, Theology

"Doxology is the key to theology" (Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, 60).

What Some are Calling a "Seminary Bubble"

One of the articles featured today at The Aquila Report linked-through to an OP/ED piece by Jerry Bowyer on what some are calling the problem of the "Seminary Bubble" -- an article which originally ran at Forbes. Notwithstanding some oversimplifications, the article does provide insight to a contemporary issue within the American Church, that ministerial training has become a very, very expensive undertaking. And, I believe, it is still a mounting issue, at that.

Mr. Bowyer's follow-up to the original article was titled "Bursting the Seminary Bubble, Part II", wherein he highlights by contrasting that it was none other than Christ who chose the "Hebrew rabbinical method of teaching: apprenticeship." Throughout his article he provides reasons which he finds to be persuasive for urging the American Church to work her way back to the apprenticeship model. Penultimate to his conclusion he says,

Some critics seemed to be under the impression that I thought that theology is not important. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I think theology is so important that I’d like to see it taught efficiently, at low cost, to far larger numbers of people. There’s nothing particularly theological about a load of debt which is excessive relative to income prospects. I’m a supply-sider, who believes that a better system of theological instruction will produce more, not fewer theologians.

No mincing of words, that. He cogently expresses his dissatisfaction with and disapproval of the Mainline model for Seminarian Training. Again, notwithstanding some oversimplifications, this was a good follow-up article, particularly because in his conclusion he provided a myriad of links to different web-based resources for theology, bible study, aids for learning the original Biblical languages, etc. The resources to which he links enforce his conclusion in his first article, "That technology is the pin that is beginning to burst the seminary bubble."

Also, Dr. Ken Schenck, the Dean of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University, recently provided some thoughts on how technology is shaking things up for the traditional-Seminarian programs. However, from a different point of view.