More Hyde on the 4th Commandment

Hyde makes the claim that there is no way around the fact that the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath.  And the article and a good portion of the podcast are discussing the pronouncement of Dort concerning the Sabbath.  Rev. Hyde claims that this shows agreement with the Puritan position, and I disagree.  Now Dort is probably a bit closer than the Heidelberg to the Puritans and closer than the Second Helvetic Confession, and close to in-line with Jan Laski, but not in agreement with the Puritans. 

First let us remember that this is not the Synod of Dort that was all the Reformed from across the Continent.  This was the same synod, but the foreign delegates had left by this point.  It is what is called the ‘post-acta’ portion of the Synod.  So this is only the Netherlands.  A Netherlands that was in the midst of being highly influenced by the Puritans from England.  William Ames was currently ministering in the Netherlands and was serving as a help to the Synod President, and the Dutch had a church in London as well.  Thus the Dutch had internal divisions on this subject.  Gomarus was against the Puritan view and Voetius was for it.  Both at the Synod. 

Dort has six points regarding the 4^thCommandment.  The first point speaks of having a ceremonial and moral aspect.  The ceremonial nature of the commandment that includes the “rest on the seventh day” and the “strict” manner of observance according to point 2.  Hyde states the ceremonial aspects as the “day on which the Sabbath fell” and the “strictness” (Regulae. pg.171 see article link above).  But that is not what the text seems to say.  The word “rest” is included.  Hyde’s formulation assumes the Sabbath will continue, but that is actually what is being debated.  The moral portion, according to point 3, is one day a week needs to use for worship and all that gets in the way of that should be rested from or stopped.  So note that there is no equation of the seventh day with the first day.  Just one day a week is required.  The fourth point is the Sabbath of the Jews is abolished, and Sunday is to be hallowed.  This is a follow up on the ceremonial points, this is all abolished.  Strict observance is abolished.  The Sabbath is abolished.  No mention of a new Christian Sabbath.  The word Sabbath is used only here to say it is abolished.  Point 4 does seem to be saying that Sunday is the day appointed to worship, but it is not the same as saying it is the Sabbath.  The fifth point now references the long standing tradition of worshipping on Sunday.   It is saying that it is now a well-established tradition.  That should have weight.  Point 6 then speaks of consecrating the day to worship by resting from servile labor and all recreation that gets in the way of worship.  It is not a call to rest form all work, nor from all recreation.  So this is clearly less than the Westminster.  Still, it does go further than the Heidelberg.

Just in case anyone thinks I am crazy, Douma comments on Dort and the fourth commandment saying “the Synod did not come up with a strictly Puritan pronouncement” (The Ten Commandments pg.144).  He too argues it is a compromise statement. 

It is not a Puritan interpretation because the Puritans make rest on the day as well as worship part of the continuing moral force of the commandment.  The Heidelberg does not.  This pronouncement from Dort does not.  It says you have to rest from stuff in order to worship, but that is not the same as what the Puritans are arguing for.  They want all work on the day to cease (including recreation).  Rest itself is part of the moral force not simply as an aide to worship, but rest for rest’s sake. 

It should be noted that Dort, as well as the Westminster, downplay the everyday portion of the 4^th commandment.  The Heidelberg and earlier Reformers emphasized resting from your evil works all the days of your life.  It is not found in this pronouncement by Dort (although perhaps outside of its intention), nor is it mentioned in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. 

Rev. Hyde and the Sabbath

One cannot click around for more than a few seconds before running across someone slobbering all over the Puritans and talking of their greatness.  Everyone wants to be part of Puritanism now and show how Puritanism is Reformation theology down the line.  Rather than admitting that Reformed theology has some breadth to it, many desire to simply make everyone into a Puritan.  No example is better than the idea of saying there is no difference between the Continental and Puritan view of the Sabbath or 4^th Commandment. 

The latest example of this is Rev. Daniel Hyde.  He is a guest on the Christ the Center Podcast Episode 450 (congrats on that number by the way) and has an article being republished in the Confessional Presbyterian arguing that everything was always Puritan Sabbatarianism.  Rev. Hyde and the hosts make this claim at about the 5 minute mark.  They go on to talk about how sometimes the application is different, but the principle is the same.  And proof is offered in that the URC is very strict on the Sabbath and a lot of Presbyterians are not.  And it must be said this is true; however, it is because the URC holds the Puritan view of the Sabbath not because there is no such thing as a Continental view.  From this point on in the podcast they talk of the “myth” of the Continental view or the “so-called” Continental view. 

Rev. Hyde does attempt to prove this from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  At the 18:31 mark and again at the 20:30 mark, Rev. Hyde quotes from the HC and reads the answer as “and that I especially on the Sabbath, that is the day of rest, . . .”  He makes a big deal about the inclusion of the word Sabbath.  The problem is the word Sabbath is not in the answer.  Now it is my understanding that while the URC has adopted the Three Forms they did not adopt specific wording or versions until this past Synod (which I do not have access to), so it might be in whatever version Rev. Hyde is using.  However, Ursinus’s commentary on the catechism does not include Sabbath, nor does any RCUS version of it, nor does the Christian Reformed Church, or really any version I can find.  The Heidelberg avoids the word Sabbath.  Hyde concludes at the 21:20 mark by saying “There is no way around it, The Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath.” 

I disagree.  Rev. Hyde has told us the Dutch are real strict about Sunday’s but he has not shown us that it comes from the Confessions nor has he dealt with the ample proof that the Lord’s Day is not the Christian Sabbath.  Remember this quote from the Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 24 “Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.”  The Second Helvetic makes a distinction between Lord’s Day and Sabbath.  Not an equation.  And remember the Second Helvetic is the single most widely adopted Confession of the Reformation.  Calvin’s 1545 Catechism is similarly focused on saying that “the observance of rest is part of the ceremonies of the ancient law, which was abolished at the coming of Jesus Christ” (Q168).  The Lord’s Day is not the Christian Sabbath, and if I read Calvin right, not even required to be Sunday.  Add to that Ursinus’s Major and Minor Catechisms, which speak of honoring the ministry and removing hindrances, but fail to call the Lord’s Day the Sabbath and specifically says the time and place is set by the church.  Also the Larger Emden Catechism, which gets closer to what Hyde wants, states the external Sabbath is maintained “when the church of God is honored in its office and ministry” (q.41) and goes on to state this time is set by the church (43). 

In the end, Hyde’s claim that the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath is the heart of the dispute.  That is what makes one a Puritan Sabbatarian.  If you believe the Lord’s Day, Sunday, is the Sabbath on a new Christianified day, then you hold to the Puritan view.  If you believe the fourth commandment is really about resting from your evil works all the days of your life and a helpful pattern to aid our weakness in calling us together to worship once a week, then you hold to the Continental view.  If you believe cessation of labor is the obedient response to a holy day instituted by God then you hold to the Puritan view, if you believe cessation of labor and physical rest is not really the point of the commandment then you hold to the Continental view of the Sabbath.  They are different and they have existed since the Reformation.  People have to stop denying it.  If you think one is right, then argue for it, but don’t pretend everyone has always held to that view.  It is okay to say you think Calvin was wrong or that Bullinger was wrong.  It is not okay to say that they really meant the same things as the Westminster.

I will deal with Hyde’s discussion of Dort in another post.

Three Forms vs. Westminster - Fourth Commandment Part 2

A commenter in the previous post made the point that the change from the “Continental” view of the 4^th commandment to the “Puritan” view was simply a development of doctrine, and thus the Puritan view is the Reformed view.  A quick look at my labels of blog posts and you will see how I really detest the idea of Doctrinal Development.  It is a sword often wielded to help shield people from the fact of what they are really saying is “The first 1700 years of the church knew nothing of this, but thankfully we invented it”.  But I shall put that aside a moment and try to continue to show that it is truly two separate traditions or streams within the broader Reformed river.

The challenge has been made to show someone from the 17^th century that held to the Continental View of the Sabbath as expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is true that in the 17^th century we begin to see in the Netherlands the Nadere Reformation that brings the Puritan thinking into the Netherlands.  One could turn the challenge around and tell others to find someone not related to the Nadere Reformation who supported the Puritan view of the Sabbath, but I shall simply answer their challenge.

Let me start with the Dutch.  Here you had a large group who followed Johannes Cocceius.  Cocceius is a bit of a controversial figure, but nonetheless, he held to a Continental View of the Sabbath as did the vast majority of his followers.  The number of his followers should not be considered small either.  This is a large group of men since he taught at Frankener and Leiden, two major universities.  Now to go to the other end of the spectrum, we can grab Franciscus Gromarus.  Gromarus, most famous for his staunch opposition to Arminius, also held to the Continental view of the Sabbath.    Both of these Dutch Theologians were professors and taught a Continental view of the Sabbath.  

The commenter mentioned the French Reformed were represented at Westminster.  While I am unaware of who would have been there, it should be mentioned that by the time of the Westminster Amyraldianism was everywhere in the French church to the degree that the French church would soon be effectively split from at least the Swiss Reformed Churches.  It should also be noted that just because some French Reformed were there does not mean they agreed.  Earlier in the 17th century men like Antoine de la Faye, head pastor at Geneva, held to a Continental view.  

It is hard to find a lot of German 17^th century people writing on the Sabbath, so it is hard one way or another to say for sure on many of them.  But David Pareus would be a Continental view pastor.  He died in Heidelberg where his career began, but also pastored in a few other places in Germany.  Johann Alsted taught at the University of Heborn and held to a Continental view.  It is more than likely that the majority of German Reformed churches held to the Continental view.  However, the German Reformed were busy fighting for their right to be reformed for a full third of the century while those in England did little to help the cause.  Thus, they were much more free to write and debate the new doctrine advocated by Bound (the Puritan view of the Sabbath).  

Lest we forget too much that many in England held a Continental view of the Sabbath or at least a non-Westminster view.  Archbishop Whitgift and Laud and Bishop Thomas Morton all appeared to have supported King James’s Book of Sports.  And James was raised a Scottish Presbyterian himself.  It is wrong to look back on the 17^th Century England and assume that everyone agreed with the Westminster view of the 4^th Commandment.  It was highly debated until the debate was settled when they cut off King Charles’s head.  

Let us also note that the idea that there is really only one position on the Sabbath is completely new.  Just listen to Herman Hoeksema.  "One cannot fail to observe a different conception of the sabbath in this Westminster Confession from that of the Second Helvetic".  He states one cannot fail.  It should be impossible to think they are the same.  

Hopefully this brief summary shows that there were plenty of 17th century who held to a Continental view.  And that Reformed theologians on both sides of the debate for literally centuries have agreed there were two different views on the Fourth Commandment.

Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

I will get back to the review of Culture Making soon enough. However, this has been on my mind a little bit, and I ran across some old posts and Alpha and Omega Ministries arguing this point. James White seems to have been upset and a little offended by R. Scott Clark not taking the time to notice the difference between covenantal and non-covenantal credobaptists. It seems to have involved Radon Thoughts where you can read some interaction with Clark, and then White has a short follow up. Again this seems to have been two years ago, and Dr. Clark's blog has since been taken down, so I could not read what he wrote originally.

Since I could not read the original blog do not take this as a whole sale defense of R. Scott Clark. That being said, he is right. You cannot be a Credo-Baptist and Reformed. And I think that applies even if I grant everything that James White says. Even if I agree with his take on Acts 2:39 (and he has a point about not quoting the whole verse, although I think quoting the whole thing strengthens the infant baptism position). Even if I agree that a Credo-Baptist can be covenantal in his approach, I don't think that they can be considered Reformed. Why? Because the Reformation defined itself. In the creeds.

Find me one Reformed Creed that allows Credo Baptism only. You can't. You can't because it does not exist. Even the creeds designed to bring people together like the Heidelberg Catechism requires infant baptism. Even the very accepting city of Strassborg penned the Tetrapolitian Confession of 1530 and it requires infant baptism. Radon Thoughts tries to defined Reformed as being covenantal and adherence to the Five Solas, but that is not how the Reformation defined itself. When they drew the boundary lines, they always drew them to exclude Credo Only Baptism. Some the creeds are even what we would consider weak or open on Predestination, but not on infant baptism. It was considered a fundamental to being Reformed.

Randon Thoughts also brings up the 1689 London Confession that is basically the Westminster Confession with a Credo Baptist section on Baptism. But the Reformation is over by this point. The latest date one can place on the Reformation is 1649 when the Peace of Westphalia made the Reformed Faith legal in the German Empire. So this does not count as a Reformational Creed.

James White does claim that such a position as mine is a position of tradition, and thus he would be more in line with the spirit of the Reformation by reconsidering the doctrines according to the Word, and throwing out that which does not fit. However, many have done just that. Arminius believed he did it, and he threw out predestination. Wesley did the same thing. As did George Fox. There have been numerous movements that examined what the Reformation believed and in their opinion it was wrong, so they changed it. But those are all rightly known by other names. The Arminians or Remonstrants, the Methodists, and the Quakers. Why are they not called Reformed? Because they examined the Reformed beliefs, and changed them. Thus they are not Reformed any more! This is what the Baptists did when they made the London Baptist Confession of 1689. They changed it, and today we call them Baptists. Not Reformed Baptists, just Baptists. If you examine a set of beliefs and change some of them because you believe they are wrong, then you don't get to take the name of the set of beliefs you just left behind. It is just how life works.

Reformed Scholasticism - a book and a question or two

I just finished reading a new book by Willem J. Van Asselt, called Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. It is just coming out and has been highly touted by many around the blogosphere including some good friends whom I respect. However, upon reading the book I was highly disappointed.

First, the book does not adequately explain what is not Scholasticism. He defines scholasticism, but never lets us know of anything that is not scholasticism. He does give a few brief titles, but no definitions and not drawing distinctions between the two (or more positions). By not doing so, I felt I did not have a good introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. This is highly ironic when one understands Scholasticism as a method of using dialectics and presenting objections and answering them.

Second, part of the book tried to give a historical progression, but fails in this. He gives examples from each of his three eras. But since he never talked about dissent or the state of scholasticism, one cannot trace any movement or growth in Scholasticism. Disappointing.

I do feel I know more about Reformed Scholasticism than I did going into the book, but I was hoping for a lot more.

What I would rather talk about though is the seeming acceptance of Reformed Scholasticism almost uncritically. It is almost as if Reformed Scholasticism is having a bit of a revival right now. Now, I can agree it was tarred and feathered for too long and unjustly, but that does not mean it is great, or even good or even desirable.

Van Asselt admits up front in the book he holds Reformed Scholasticism in a positive light. His historical treatment begins in 1560, which is late second generation reformation. It is true that in many ways the Reformation was an outright rejection of Scholasticism. The vast majority of the First Reformers were humanists and deliberately rejected Scholasticism. Indeed they were committed humanists and went to the Scripture for their theology. They focused on grammar and linguistic issues as they developed the theology of the Protestant Reformation eschewing the Scholastic argumentation and teaching. Zwingli and the Zurich bunch were humanists and hated Scholasticism, and not just the excess and the theology. They did not use the methodology either. Nor did Oecolampadius in Basel, nor Haller in Bern. Calvin's Institutes looks nothing like the Institutes of Turretin. Because Calvin did use the Scholastic method. Why are we not wondering and looking more closely at the rejection of Scholasticism by the fathers of the Reformation?

Even if we grant that Reformed Scholasticism changed from Romanist Scholasticism so that it was in service to the text of Scripture as Burnett convincingly argues, it does not remove all concern. Does not method affect content?

Let me illustrate. The Heidelberg Catechism (non-Scholastic document. Van Asselt calls it a Synthetic) is vastly different from the Westminster Catechism (more of a Scholastic influenced document). One of the complaints of Reformers about Scholasticism is that it was speculative, and not practical. The Heidelberg starts off by pointing out the end. It starts where it plans to finish, with Christ and him crucified as our only comfort and hope. You can see that point running throughout the document. You will not find discussions of God's nature or man's chief end in the non-scholastic Heidelberg. The Westminster is going to be a much more thorough theologically, touching the points that the Heidelberg just ignores. Is any of that related to the Scholastic influence of many of the Puritans?

Another example this one from Basel. Oecolampadius was the first reformer there. He was a humanist. He wrote a commentary on Daniel where commenting on 3:24-25 (The three in the furnace), he unashamedly claims the fourth figure is Christ himself. This seems to be the point of the text for Oecolampadius although he does mention that the miracle is done by the true God as opposed to false gods of Babylon. Even the application is Christ centered.
John Jacob Grynaeus, a late 1570's head pastor of Basel who brought the town back from Lutheranism, also wrote on Daniel. Grynaeus was much more scholastic in methodology. He rejects the fourth figure as Christ and spends time discussing efficient, secondary, and final causes of the miracle (Aristotle), and unbelievers. Next is Polanus, who was 1599 and thoroughly Scholastic. His discussion on Daniel included long theological discussions of angels, for he too rejected the figure as Christ, broke things into points and sub point on miracles and angels and the like. A trip into what early reformers might have called speculative theology.

I am not saying I am out right against Reformed Scholasticism, but that just maybe we ought to stop and look at this thing a little bit more

Children at the Table but Not at the Baptistry

I wanted to read Dr. Venema’s book Children at the Lord’s Table. So I went on Interlibrary Loan and typed in the title of the book. Silly me, I did realize that there were multiple books by the same title. I ended up getting the same titled book, but by a Disciples of Christ minister named John T. Hinant. And while I still plan to read Dr. Venema’s book, I am glad that I made the mistake. Hinant’s book was fascinating for several reasons even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Hinant is in favor of infants and children at the table despite the fact that the Disciples of Christ is an ‘adult only baptism’ church. I had no idea how far spread this movement had become until I read this book. Hinant argues that the right order of events is communion-confirmation-baptism. Hinant’s book is also interesting because it grew out of a poll by mail he conducted about the subject. Apparently communing unbaptized children is a fairly regular practice despite the fact that it is not supposed to be in the Disciples churches. Hinant also briefly touches on one major fact that I think is missing from the Presbyterian-Reformed debate and that is the confirmation aspect.

I do think that Hinant overstates the historical evidence for Paedo-Communion (PC). He fails to note the seeming objections of Origen, Clement of Alexandria as well as the Didascalia. He then also just sweeps out of hand the idea that Cyprian’s adherence to the practice might not be universal. Most of the rest of his historical proof is about young children, but clearly not infants. He then admits that as Confirmation was moved away from the moment of baptism so too did the taking of communion move away from baptism. Confirmation was necessary. Hinant called this a problem for Protestants who did not want to make Confirmation a sacrament since it barred access to a sacrament.

One other point that seemed to be the case in some of the quotes about infant communion is that they were linked to a reading of John 6 that required the eating of the flesh to be saved. Infant communion is inextricably linked to the idea that communion is necessary for salvation. Clearly the ancients who did adhere to this idea viewed it as necessary for eternal life that is why infants are argued for then and it is still the reason now. Sacramentalism is a prerequisite for the PC position.

Some of the quotes made me wonder if they administered the sacrament once to infants to get them “saved”, but was the communing continued? It was hard to tell from a lot of the quotes.

It was an educational book to see adult baptism only denominations allowing young children and infants to the Table. I still disagree with his book, but it was interesting to

New Calvinism versus Old Calvinism

I want to briefly comment on Marc Driscoll’s blog post about the New Calvinism. Apparently Time Magazine has called the New Calvinsim is the third most powerful engine changing the world. That is exciting news. I am not really writing to pick on the New Calvinism. I just feel I have to pick on Marc Driscoll’s definition of Old Calvinism. I think it shows a real lack of historical understanding, and probably a real lack of self-reflection as well.

He has four points of difference between the New Calvinism and the Old Calvinism. He touts his first difference as Old Calvinism withdrawing from culture while New Calvinism transforms it and is missional. Again, a made up word used to define this new movement does not speak well of transforming the culture or “Culturalizing” (since we are making stuff up). It also hard to believe that the Reformation did not transform the culture. I am not sure what history books Driscoll reads, but they are not the right ones. The Reformation and Old Calvinism changed the world. New Calvinism on the other hand likes to use Twitter during worship services and cuss like sailors and use provocative language to titillate the listener. Hardly transforming, in my opinion.

His second definition has Old Calvinism as fleeing from the cities and New Calvinism flocking to them. I will just give him this one as how “old” Old Calvinism is he attacking? This probably has a little merit to it, so we will give him this one.

His third definition has Old Calvinism as favoring cessationistic with regards to the Holy Spirits miraculous gifts while New Calvinism embraces Continuationism. This is dead on and one major difference. I will not debate how wrong New Calvinism is here, but this is a very major difference.

His fourth point has Old Calvinism as fearful and suspicious while the New Calvinism is loving and open to others. While this is clearly a slanted view, I think he underestimates the value of fear. Bridge building is one thing, but unwilling to denounce is quite another. I also think that this point undercuts his first point. They are not transforming culture, but building bridges to it. If you have not read the book Young Restless and Reformed you probably ought to. That is a good tour of New Calvinism. But in that book we see people trying to minister the gospel in the milieu of the culture. Rap songs speaking Calvinism. Driscoll would no doubt point out that it is bridge building and reaching the young, but is it compromising? New Calvinism is not really dealing with these tough questions just as they ducked them in the book. Fear sometimes protects. Suspicion is often founded on solid ground.

I am not saying New Calvinism is dumb or wrong. I am all for people holding to New Calvinsim, but it is not Reformed. I will not be wearing a Jonathon Edwards is My Homeboy T-Shirts, but I would rather someone wear that than a Che T-Shirt. Still, I believe the main difference is that Old Calvinism is Time tested and allows Biblical Truth to sink to every area of life. New Calvinism is enamoured with the truth of Predestination and Sovereignty, but they have not yet had time to work out the kinks. When they do, they will either be a fad passed away or they will become Old Calvinists too.

Modern Scholarship: Change for Change's sake?

I have a friend who is very knowledgeable about modern scholarship and has many, many commentaries. I dare say he is easily the most well-read man on commentaries that I have ever met. He often lets me borrow some to aid my small library and I greatly appreciate it. I have some of the old standards like Calvin and Kistemaker, so I always borrow the newer guys. I have noticed a few things while going through the Epistles of Peter, and I thought I would simply share my thoughts here.

What I have noticed is a trend in modern scholarship to move away from older readings, often time in my opinion with very little reason to do so, or at least shaky reasons. I wish I had written all the examples down from I Peter, but I didn’t. Needless to say the controversial passages such as I Peter 3:18-22 is one where you will not find many modern commentators defending the Augustinian view of that passage or even the Medieval Roman view about descending into hell. They have a new explanation. But I am not just talking about confusing and disputed passages, I am talking about passages where no real disagreement existed before.

Take II Peter 1:1 “To those who have received like precious faith with us . . .”

Now you look at Kistemaker and Calvin and even William Barclay the liberal they all agree that “faith” in this passage is the subjective personal faith, the trusting in the Lord Jesus for salvation. Of these only Kistemaker says that there are multiple possibilities in reading the word faith. He defends his choice of the subjective faith rather than objective faith (ie. a body of teaching) in one paragraph consisting of 10 lines where he defines both terms. He takes two sentences to explain why the context makes it subjective.

Now newer commentaries like Gene L. Green’s commentary published this year takes a subjective stance on faith. It is the same doctrinal teaching, not the same receiving and trusting of God. So does Peter Davids who is published in 2006. Both take the objective meaning of faith. Why this departure? Surprisingly little time is devoted to it. David’s mentions that some have read it a different way, but merely states that it fits the context better despite his admission that the more normal usage of the word is subjective.

Now I would not bother posting here if this did not continue. Take II Peter 1:5 “add to your faith, virtue . .” Here again the older commentators all take faith to be the subjective trusting and believing in Christ. But the newer guys all reject that reading. Here, however, both Davids and Green take faith to mean “faithfulness”. Their defense? It means this most often in non-biblical virtue lists. That seems more than a little flimsy to me.

So my question is about modern scholarship in general. Do modern scholars look to disagree with the past? I can see how no one would want to buy a commentary that said nothing new. Do modern scholars prefer newer readings because we believe that as moderns we have more insights? Am I alone in seeing trends like this? Could it be that I have just made a big deal about nothing? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Oh and for disclosure sake, J.N.D Kelly who is newer than Barclay and Calvin, but slightly older than Kistemaker and older than the other new guys splits the difference by taking an objective view of the first faith, but stays with the older crowd by taking a subjective view of the second faith.

Response to Sandlin's De-Intellectualization Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Sandlin response part 3

Another important thing to notice in Andrew Sandlin’s article is the latent episcopacy in his thought. Sandlin is in effect arguing for bishops despite the objection to such leaders on the surface. His article starts off commenting on a response to a book written by Carl Trueman. Trueman makes the following criticism of the book Young Restless and Reformed and the movement associated with that title.

First, there is the absence of the church at key points. Now, this criticism needs to be nuanced. All of those mentioned above are churchmen, and none would wish to see their conferences or their personalities becoming in some way substitutes for the institutional church. Yet the danger is always there whereby people become attached to the man rather than to the message or to the church. We are commanded to love the body of Christ; and our leaders are useful only to the extent that they are instrumental to that end.

Sandlin seems to agree with this attack, but feels it does not go far enough. This is when he launches into the his idea about the need for intellectuals and the lack of them in the list of people in this movement. Again note the criticism is that the leaders of this movement may draw a cult of personality rather than draw people into the body of Christ despite the fact that most of the leaders named by Trueman are by his own admission churchmen and pastors.

Sandlin gives a list of people that were leaders of the Reformed ‘Movement’ when he came into it, who were all intellectuals.

Greg Bahnsen, Donald Bloesch, Gordon Clark, John Frame, John Gerstner, J. I. Packer, R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til.

Note these leaders: Bahnsen was ordained, but never a pastor a church as far as I can see. Bloesch taught at a school for his entire career (E&R and UCC if you are interested). Clark was a professor at Wheaton and Butler for most of his career. Frame is a professor for Westminster for most of his career and is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Gerstner was a professor at Pittsburgh Theological and Knox Theological Seminaries. J. I. Packer is a professor most recently of Regent College in Canada, and never appears to have pastored a church. Francis Schaeffer was a pastor for about 10 years, but is most famous for his work at L’Abri, not his work in a pastorate. Cornelius Van Til was yet another life long professor. He taught at Princeton and Westminster Seminaries. R. J. Rushdoony is an exception as he served as a pastor and a missionary; however, he is again best known for his work as a philosopher and writer.

The point here is this. The very objection made by Trueman and expanded upon by Sandlin can be applied to Sandlin himself. Trueman warns against a cult of personality that will end up with follower of man and not followers of Christ implanted into his church. Trueman makes this critique of men who currently pastor churches like John Piper, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Driscoll. Sandlin feels the critique does not apply to the men of his generation like Bahnsen and Van Til, but why? The reason is because they are the intellectuals, and the current crop of men are not. The critique of having a personality cult does not apply to Van Til, Bahnsen, Clark, and Schaeffer because they taught other people ideas and intellectual innovative ideas (according to Sandlin), and they did not ‘shepherd’ (we have seen what Sandlin thinks of that)

I am not saying that Sandlin is against pastors or against the local church. By no means. But, I am saying that Sandlin clearly believes that the leaders of church as a whole ought to be above that. His argumentation appears that way. Here he is in his own words:

We now have in their [see the above list] stead Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Joshua Harris, Tim Keller, C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and R. C Sproul — popularizers and pastors and effective leaders, but not intellectuals.

Sandlin then seems to think the church is only "a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force" when it is led by intellectuals who are not pastors. What other way is there to describe this than episcopacy? He may not want the actual church hierarchy to go with it, but effectively he wants a bishopric of the Teacher of the Theology. Only under their guidance and leadership can the church then become effective. Sandlin is actively arguing that the church needs Intellectual Bishops to led the church in a direction that will make it an effective force in the world.

This is neither the time nor the place to argue presbyterian from of church government, but it is the time to point out what Sandlin argues for. He is not really against personality cults. He is just against them if the personalities are pastor popularizers.

Sandlin response part 2

Part 1

The next thing I want to point out about Sandlin’s article, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement, is the complete and utter lack of respect if not out right contempt for the “pastor”. Sandlin is arguing for more giant intellectuals, and that is okay to want giant intellectuals, public intellectuals, but it is not okay to spurn the pastors of the church in the process. This statement is the first hint that something is amiss.

We were not "shepherded" into the movement; we were tractor-beamed into it by the force of ideas.

I do believe that some people come to the Reformed faith because of the consistency of it logically, or because they see the ‘force of ideas’ that are coming out of it. But does that mean we should mock or put scare quotes around those who were ‘shepherded’ into the Reformed church? Certainly not. Can we not minister to people in different ways? Not everyone is the same. I do not need to prove that the Bible favors shepherding people. That really ought to go without saying.

The critique from Sandlin gets more specific in his last section entitled, ‘The Pastoralization’. That entire section is a derision of pastors. Sandlin means to specifically attack the modern leaders of the Reformed Church who are in his mind Pastors or popularizers, but his attack reveals more than that.

The pastoral concerns — concerns, to be sure, from a Reformed perspective — will predominate. The life of the mind will be pushed to the periphery. Calvinism will be reduced to the institutional church, to the "5 Points," to devotional books, to seventeenth-century reprints. It will become therapeutic recovery for exhausted and jaded Arminians. What it will not be is a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force.

While it is nice he admits pastoral concerns are nice, he separates completely the pastoral concerns from the life of the mind. And this is how I think his attack goes to far. If he thinks that Popularizers are not good for the church as a whole fine. But this attack is not upon popularizing the message. The only fragment of a sentence that can be seen as an attack on popularizing is the ‘5 Points’ comment, which he explained earlier was a term of derision for those that over simplify Calvinism. Devotional material cannot be seen as bad. Should not leaders produce devotional material. Should not pastors be devotional? Is teaching others to be devotional a bad thing? Is it a good thing that Sandlin approves of intellectual leaders who could not write a devotional book if their life depended upon it? I do not think so. I can agree that the church should not be mainly a place of recovery for jaded Arminians, but how can one object to the church being a refuge for such people? I am not sure, but Sandlin appears to object. His comment about the 17th century reprints actual belongs in his earlier paragraph, and his attack on the institutional church is just confusing? Should we be encouraging the non-institutional church? What is it that we do not like about churches? One can only assume it is because they are too ‘pastoral.’

Sandlin then continues his assualt and goes overboard once again.

We should not be surprised that this reduction of Calvinism should occur in a deeply postmodern age — an age that eschews rigorous thinking and sharp distinctions, that delights in "community" and warm emotions, that craves not truth but "relationships." In this way, despite their antipathy to postmodernism, the new non-public intellectual pastoral Calvinists reflect a concession to today’s "postmodern turn."

Now it is true that post-modernism hates truth and prefers relationships. But does that mean that relationships and truth are really against one another? No, of course not. The church can have both, and should have both. Of course intellectual leaders and book writing can only have truth and has nothing to do with relationships or community. However, the bible has different views. We are commanded to come together and worship and not neglect the communion of the saints so that we can provoke one another to good works (Hebrews 10:24-25). It seems the author of Hebrews believes that relationships and community provoke people to good works in their life. Their life in the world. Sandlin of course disagrees:

How can we have a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force when we lack virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectuals

Again Hebrews seems to answer this question at least in part with community and relationships. Sandlin thinks such ‘pastoralization’ a bad idea.

Sandlin's De-Intellectualization: A Response Part I

Andrew Sandlin has written a blog called, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement. It is a piece that deserves attention and probably will receive several responses from me at least because of the many things within it that deserve full treatment by all men.

I do want to say right off the top that I am not against intellectuals or the church having rigorous thinking. I think Sandlin and I would define intellectual very differently, but I understand and appreciate his point that the church needs serious thinkers to interact with the culture at large.

That being said, I disagree with almost everything else said in the blog/article. Let us start with what everyone is expecting me to say: this is pure blooded theological development. I have long thought Sandlin is the most honest and up-front about his holding to theological development that is similar to Schaff. Sandlin again makes that clear here. He starts it in the very title by making sure he always refers to it as the Reformed Movement rather than Reformed Theology or the Reformed Church or the Reformed Tradition. All of that is pushed aside so that we know to be truly reformed means to be moving into new theological ideas all the time. He praises the idea of theologians doing ‘paradematic science’ which he defines as:

"Paradigmatic science," on the other hand, is a landscape-altering scholarship that rearranges the scholarly data into a new model or way of looking.

What Sandlin advocates is a completely new way of looking at the Bible or at Christ or the world through Christ or something. He leaves it a little unclear, but what he misses is the people who took Christianity and jumbled it up, changed it up, twisted it up, and said "here a new theology." To Sandlin that is the heritage of the Reformation. I could not disagree more. Sandlin goes on to bemoan the fact that

The latter [Van Til, Rushdoony, among others], creative thinkers, were, in one way or another, reshaping the theological landscape. The former [Scott Clark, Lig Duncan among others], plodding thinkers, are today trying to get the landscape back to what it looked like before the creative interlopers came along and messed up the lawn.

Sandlin glorifies the ‘creative thinker’ as if the Bible needs to be viewed creatively. If we need to reshape what the Bible teaches every generation or maybe even more often. When we see this love of theological development in Sandlin, it becomes easy to see how this undergirds the modern movements toward Theonomy and why so many theonomists continued on into the Federal Vision. And one can see why Norman Shepherd is beloved. They crave the new. Anyone who comes along and preaches a new way of doing ‘Christianity’ will be the champion. Those who desire something new will continue to move with any new thing because the newness is itself a good virtue. Not following new things is a sad misplaced staleness which Sandlin insults as plodding thinking. He continues his backhanded assault.

First, the bright younger leaders, lacking the intellectual firepower of their immediate predecessors, retrench in a scholastic orthodoxy, taking refuge in the older confessions, wary of the speculation, innovation and daring that characterized those predecessors and committing themselves to policing the ranks of all heterodoxies — real or imagined.

Listen to the insults and see what he is actually insulting. Yes, he is insulting everyone who is not following some new trend and some people are specifically named. But look at what else he insults. "They take refuge in the older confessions". The confessions themselves are insults. Who would want to cling to such ‘old’ (read ‘outdated’) relics. Only the wimps, the intellectual lightweights. The confessions are not good because they do not speculate, change, and innovate. This is very much like Nevin’s comment that they are a ‘necessary evil’. Once people use creeds to hold on to they have missed the point and become intellectual lightweights.

Where oh where do we see the Bible speak like this? Does the Bible invite us to innovate or does it say that it can be understood now and forever. "And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever." (I Peter 2:24-25). Does the meaning of the Bible change or does it endure as a timeless truth to be held by all?
I cannot but help but think of Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

More to come

Sectarianism?

This quote from James Jordan says it all.

“The sectarian compares the weakness of other churches to his own supposed strength, and pronounces them apostate on that basis. The catholic notes the weakness of other churches, and because of that tries to work with them, and prays for them. The sectarian thinks history has ended; the catholic realizes that it has not. (If anything, by the way, ‘postmillennialists’ should be even more flexibly catholic than others, because they believe that history has a long way to go, and that theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come.)”
- James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, pg. 59

I took this quote from The Liturgical Institute.

The sentence in the parenthesis is what needs pointing out the most. Theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come! That is a bold statement. Let me boil it down. It basically means that
1) James Jordan knows that Christ will not return for centuries to come, 2) that everything we know about Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the church, and the Bible are all wrong, 3) we need to be willing to jump on whatever new fad comes along.

Call me sectarian if you like, but that is clearly what he is saying. Some might come along and try to paint theological development as like ‘organic’ growth or ‘aging’ growth. They like to use the comparison of math. They argue as follows: ‘When you are young all you know is 2+2=4. But soon you learn division and then geometry and maybe even a little calculus. That never invalidates 2+2=4, but builds upon it.’ That is a nice try at a defense, but it is wrong. The whole idea of theological development is not based on a math model, but on Hegel’s dialectic model. Where the thesis and the antithesis make a new synthesis. The original thesis and antithesis are now both wrong. They are not built upon, they are left behind. So it is with theological development. The more honest thinkers will admit that (see Philip Schaff), but that is hard to come by today. The other reason the analogy with math breaks down is because of the nature of theology. Justification by Faith Alone is invalidated if add works to it. It is no longer justification by faith alone. One can change the definition of the word ‘faith’ or the word ‘alone’, but it still invalidates the original claim, and it does not build upon it.

I am tired of people telling me that the church is ignorant and needs a few centuries to grow up. The truth is the truth yesterday, today, and forever.

What is the German Reformed Tradition?

I think the German Reformed Tradition is often over looked. This is a fact that few can ignore. When it is remembered, it is almost always remembered incorrectly. People too often associate the German Reformed Tradition with Mercersburg Theology. They do this because people want to define a tradition by the great scholars of the day from that tradition. In America, Mercersburg Seminary was the German Reformed Church’s seminary, and their main scholars put for the Mercersburg Theology. But, that theology was never fully accepted by the German Reformed Church because it was a departure from the German Reformed Tradition. I hope in the some future posts to flesh out what the German Reformed Tradition is and how off Mercersburg was from it, but I will give a brief view of what I believe is the German Reformed Tradition now.

1. Reformed Pietism. Pietism has bad connotations for many, but the German Reformed Tradition is one of Reformed Pietism. It really resisted the Reformed Scholasticism movement of the latter Reformation. Although there is a unique blend of Scholasticism and Pietism in the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus was a Scholastic. Olevianus was much more pietistic. Yet, they came together to make the Heidelberg. Note the Heidelberg is written in 1st and 2nd person rather than the usual 3rd person such as the Westminster. The governing principle of the catechism is our comfort in life and death. This is part of the reason that the German Reformed Tradition did not produce grand systematic theologians nor had a seminary of their own until the middle of the 19th century. The church emphasized piety more than scholarship.

2. High Calvinism. The German Reformed Church has always held to a high and strict Calvinism. If one looks at Ursinus’s Major Catechism it does not take long to see the importance placed on election and double predestination. The German delegates at the Synod of Dort were insistent on Limited Atonement. Even the founders of the German Reformed Church in America were very strict. Rev. Boehm rejected the idea of union with the American Presbyterians because they did not specifically hold to the Canons of Dort, and he feared their Calvinism defective. Rev. Schlatter, the architect of the German Reformed Church in America, was well known for his High Calvinism and even later men like Dr. Samuel Hellfinstien, who trained men from the ministry from his house, taught and held to a vigorous High Calvinism.

3. Anti-Revivalism. This was not something that started with Nevin’s critique of the Second Great Awakening. While it is true that during the Second Great Awakening some of their methods had made inroads, it was not all pervasive. Nevin’s book won him a great following because the church as a whole was already not revivalistic. During the First Great Awakening while the other major churches were all suffering splits between pro and anti revival groups, the German Reformed Church lost only one church and one minister. And the church came back. Remember this was also done in the face of Count Zinzendorf who came to America with his Moravian/Revivalistic theology trying to unite all the German Protestant churches. It should also be noted that when the German Reformed Church sought out help from the Presbyterians, they talked to the Old Side/Anti-Revival Synod of Philadelphia.

4. Covenant Theology. This is often over looked when people discuss the Covenant Theologians they go to the Dutch or some other famous seminary professor. But, Olevianus is often considered one of the first Covenant Theologians. Ursinus organized his Major Catechism (before the Heidelberg) around the principle of the covenant. These two men were the fathers of the German Reformed Tradition.

There are other things that can be mentioned as distinctive teachings of German Reformed. It should be noted that the German Reformed did not have the exclusive psalmody history that some of the other branches begin with. It is in Germany that hymnody took hold in the church, and not just with Luther. The Reformed did their share as well.
It should also be noted that the German Reformed Tradition is one of the only ones not to be hampered by Erastianism. At some point the Dutch let the State mingle with the church. The Westminster mingled the church and state. Not so much with the Germans. The Heidelberg Catechism makes it quite clear that the power of the keys rest with the church. It is the church who will do the discipline, not the state. This would have been a clear difference with the Dutch.

I hope to come back to some of this in future posts, but I hope this is a primer for many of you.

Iconography

Easter has now come and gone. Easter is one of the times when pictures of Jesus and icons of all sorts come out of the woodwork. So, it seems like a nice time to review the controversy surrounding the use of icons.

The early church was against pictures and representations of any of the trinity. Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) stated, “The habit of daily view lowers the dignity of the divine, which cannot be honored, but is only degraded by sensible material” (Schaff Church History Vol. 2. Pg. 267-268.) Symbols, not direct pictures, began to make their way into the churches as paganism gave way to Christianity. However, there was always a large segment of the Christian Church that rejected these things. In 306 the Spanish Council of Elvira forbade pictures in the churches. The cross became one of the first signs used and accepted in the church as a whole. It started as a clever way of combining Greek letters and became an accepted symbol allowed in churches. This was beginning as early as the late 2nd Century, but again with some great opposition. Even pictures of Mary barely date back to the 3rd century. And they were not wide spread at that time as the controversy of whether Mary should be called the Theotokos shows the opposition to Mary, and ironically led to the promotion of Mary and the making of images of her.

The crucifix (the cross with Jesus still hanging upon it) does not date back beyond the end of the 6th century, but is fairly prevalent by the end of the 7th. Pictures of Jesus were completely rejected by the early church. Even Eusebius (early fourth century) scolded Empress Constantia for asking for an image of Christ. This means real opposition to images must have been still remaining because Eusebius adored Constantine and his family. There are also stories of bishops in the early 5th century still tearing up pictures of Christ as contrary to the Scripture. In the middle of the 5th century we begin to see pictures of Christ. The Greek churches had long loved paintings of biblical scenes, but had not yet accepted physical representations of Christ. With the settlement of the Christological controversies and the rise of depictions of Mary, came with it the pictures of Christ, often in the arms of Mary as a babe. The suffering Christ with thorns on his head also became popular. A theology of images was slowly worked out in the East beginning in the mid-6th century. Despite growing acceptance in the East, it never did become as accepted as one might think now, since they often show up even in Protestant churches, and will overwhelm you in Catholic ones. The church suffered through long wars and debates about icons in the 8th century thanks to Leo III Emperor of Constantinople. He had immediate support from many bishops, and in fact many of them were iconoclasts long before Leo came to power. Asia Minor particular appears to have been a place were images of Christ were not accepted. Constantine of Nacolia, Thomas of Claudiopolis, and Theodosius of Ephesus were all against images (see Seven Ecumenical Councils by Davis. Pg. 296). It is true that during the official policy of destroying images there were many who supported the images. John of Damascus is foremost among the iconophils, and Pope Gregory III had a council of Rome that condemned those who opposed images. In addition the monks stood in favor of images because they often made them in their monastaires. If the images had been forbidden, their source of revenue would have dried up. In 754 the Council of Hieria met. Here 330 bishops signed a statement saying the only proper represenation of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist. This council is often forgotten and overlooked since it is later overthrown by Empress Irene in the Second Council of Nicaea, but there are 330 names attached to that document. Even after the restoration of images in 787, they were still opposed by a great number of churches, bishops and never received support. Even in the East opposition to icons remained. John the Grammarian, a future Patriarch, led renewed opposition to the icons, and the 754 statement became the official position of the church again briefly after another council in 815. Only in 843 were icons restored. It bears noting that both times the icons were restored it was done by an Empress, never an Emperor

Of course the West had a more immediate rejection of the 787 restoration of images. Under Charlemagne the Libri Carolini was written that rejected images, but also rejected their destruction. In 794 Charlemagne headed the Council of Frankfurt where the use of images was rejected. A position that would continue under Louis the Pious. Another council condemned the use of images at Aix-La-Chappel. Theodulf of Orleans appears to be one of the leading spokesman against images during this time. Theodulf clearly believed the use of images was dangerous and would led to errors Pictures and representations of Christ contained errors while the Scriptures did not. Theodulf saw no reason to use a fallible source when an infallible one was available. Agobard bishop of Lyons was also around at that time and he wrote a book against images as well. Slightly later, about 840, we run across another icon-hater, Claudius Archbishop of Turin. Turin hated the images and went on the rampage against them. Even some of those who opposed Claudius, such as Jonas Bishop of Orleans, merely liked the images as decorations, but opposed the Eastern Orthodox use of them. Later Roman bishops would try to trace the Waldenses (12th century) back to Clauidius because the Waldenses also rejected icons and the pope and many other things that Claudius rejected. Thus, the West has a long standing tradition of opposing images on the grounds of the 10 Commandments, the one person and two natures of Christ, and as something degrading to God and Scripture.

It is sad that today’s Protestant churches so openly accept the idea of pictures of Christ. The heritage of the church speaks against them. The early fathers are unanimously against them, and the church itself has never fully embraced pictures of Christ. That is until the last century when the Protestant Church unthinkingly decided to use pictures and images of Christ willy-nilly. Now few churches continue the historic church’s teaching against the use of icons. Something to remember next time you are faced with Easter images of Christ.

Another Catholicity moment

I have long been critical of most things going on at Reformed Catholicism including its basic premise that an honest dialogue can exist between all groups such as Romanists and Reformed as one example. Denominations exist for the most part because of serous divisions that often go to the very nature of the gospsel. Take for example the differences between Calvinistic churches and Armenian churches. They disagree on at least the nature of man’s sin, whether faith is a work, Christ’s work on the cross and what that did, whether God controls all things, man’s role in salvation, and the security coming from salvation. These are fundamental. I am all for dialogue, but not dialogue that pretends such difference are not at the very heart of the Christian faith. Reformed Catholicism thought at first that such things and other controversial issues such as the role of Mary and Images could be discussed in a helpful non-divisive manner. They have been proven wrong as many writers have now split to form Evangelical Catholicity. The split seems to be because of a growing difference between writers like Kevin Johnson and the more Mercersburg oriented group like Jonathon Bonomo. This can be seen in heated exchanges about a wide range of topics in the comment sections.

This brings me to my point about Catholicity or Ecumenism. It is the dirty little secret of Catholicity. It is actually an intolerant movement and spews venom at those who disagree with their Ecumenical or ‘Peaceful’ goals. One only has to look at history to see that what happened between Evangelical and Reformed Catholicism happens every time a movement claims to be about Peace and Ecumenism. In my own personal denominations history one can look at the Peace Movement that tried to bring about reconciliation between the Mercersburg Party and the Old Reformed Party. Those who did not want to participate and still did things like bring people up on trial for heresies were branded as crazies. Just look at James I Good’s take on the German-Russian ‘Kohlbrueggians’ in his History of the RCUS 19th century. Good is a staunch Old Reformed Man, but he has nicer things to say about the Mercersburg group than the intolerant German-Russian group, which would eventually not follow the rest of the denomination into the merger with the Evangelical Lutheran church. The Presbyterian Church also serves as a wonderful example. For years the Princetonians had been fighting to get the Liberal who signed the Auburn Affirmation out of the church. They had some small success then in 1925 a Princeton Professor known for his ecumenical or a peace attitude was elected moderator: Professor Charles Erdman. It was under his leadership that the cause of biblical orthodox ground to a halt. He placated a group of ministers who denied the virgin birth by creating a committee to discover the problems within the church itself. That commission interviewed men like Machen, but rejected their view of the problem. The very next year the appointments of Princeton were held up and the institution was soon destroyed. It was under the guise of Peace that the ‘intolerant’ view of Princeton was eradicated. One could go back further in time to the Counciliar Movement and the Council of Pisa, which was supposed to settle the dispute between the Avingion and Roman Popes, but instead created a third pope. Ecumenism is not a peaceful movement. It never has been. The latest split in Catholicity blogs is just further proof of that.

A brief excursus on Roman and Reformed Unity

I just want to take a second to reflect on something that has been happening on Reformed Catholicism. The site has had a few dust ups about Roman Catholicism and especially the pope. Most of these seem to have been cause by Tim Enloe. One of the ironies of this dust up is that Mr. Enloe often holds to a much more Roman view on many issues, just not the pope apparently. The comments got pretty heated, and Mr. Enloe seems a little surprised that Romanists would comment in such a manner.

I mention this because it highlights my major problem with Reformed Catholicism. It is an oxy moron. It is nice to speak about a dialogue between the Romanist and the Protestants, but it is not possible in the manner they desire it. Protestants and Romanists cannot agree on the gospel. We cannot agree on justification by faith alone, what dialogue can happen? None. We cannot even agree upon what books are in the bible. What should one expect when one presents a critique, historical or otherwise, about the Pope, which like it or not, is the defining characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Just another issue Protestants are Romanists do not agree upon. The Bible is clear, ‘How can two walk together lest they be agreed?’ There is no agreement between Romanists and Protestants, especially Reformed believers. So, I am all in favor of a Roman – Reformed dialogue. I just think that if that dialogue does not start with a call to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, then no good is being done.

Bishop Wright and John 1:1-18

Bishop Wright makes several argument about his position from Scripture. Remember is argument is best framed by this quote:

no first-century Jew could think of a human being, far less than himself, as the incarnation of God. Jewish monotheism prohibits it; and even if it didn’t (If we take Alan Segal’s point about pluriformity within early Jewish God-talk), there is no actual model for it within Judaism. (Jesus’s Self Understanding)

Bishop Wright begins by stating that all title such as Christ, Son of Man, and Son of God only point to the Messiahship of Jesus, his vocation, rather than being the Second Person of the Trinity. This fact is generally granted for the title of Jesus except Son of God and perhaps Lord. More in-depth argumentation against the idea that the Son of God title means Second Person of the Trinity can be found in a 9 part series of posts by Rev. Jeff Meyers. I believe Rev. Meyers is arguing along a similar path as Bishop Wright with regards to the title ‘Son of God’. Now, I do think that the title Son of God refers to the divinity of Jesus, but I am simply going to grant his point here. I do not think that the self-knowledge of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity hinges on the title Son of God. So I will just pass this point, but noting my disagreement for now. Perhaps in a future post series we can take that subject up.

The first point that any discussion of Jesus as a self-aware Second person of the Trinity should start is with John 1:1-18. This familiar passage gives us a clear picture of the Incarnation and is the traditional defense of Jesus as God. Bishop Wright of course deals with this passage.

The Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst’: eskenosen is of course a Temple-image, and if we understand John 1:1-18 in terms of its Jewish roots, and its parallels in, for example, Sirach 24, this should not surprise us. Word, Wisdom, Spirit and ultimately Temple and Torah—these are the themes which, in Judaism, speak of the one, true and living God active within the world in general and Israel in particular, promising future decisive personal action to save Israel and the world. These are the themes of the Prologue, and of the whole Gospel; and I suggest that they are also major themes in the Synoptics.

Bishop Wright seeks to make John 1 about a picture of the Temple. The Word tabernacles with us. I have no objection to the Word tabernacling with us, I have disagreement with the spin placed on it and the use of the other words. Bishop Wright takes ‘Word’ as a reference to 2TJ’s manner of speaking about the work of God. Wright’s reference to Sirach 24 is puzzeling as it speaks of Wisdom tabernacling and relates Wisdom to the Torah, but nothing about the Word. But here is where Wright’s methodology dominates his Christology. There are ways to use the Logos (the Greek of Word) that do not involve Wright’s 2TJ. For example the term ‘Word’ had a long Greek history. The Stoics, a major philosophical force in the first century used the term freely to mean the principle through which all things came to be and to which all returned. Hellenistic Jews used the term often to refer to Divine Reason. So the term obviously found its way into widespread Jewish usage too. John could be communicating here with the Greek philosophy of the age by calling out their Logos that created all things is actually God and with God and now has taken on flesh. It would fit more with the audience of John since it appear he is not directing his gospel to the First Century Jew.

Of course the other problem that Wright does not address in his on-line articles is that John (no matter whose reading one takes) is beginning with the Word who is God and with God. This Word is what takes on flesh. John begins with the eternal divine nature of Jesus and then tells us Jesus took flesh, the human nature. When we begin with the Second Person of the Trinity and move to that Person of the Trinity taking to himself a human nature, then it becomes hard to imagine a Jesus who is not self-conscious of his divine nature. In fact, the method of Wright to ask what a first century Jew could possible have thought is the exact opposite of the method of John in his gospel.

As for John 1:14 where the Word tabernacles among us somehow being a reference to the Temple which overthrows the centrality of persons and natures in Christology, I think there is a better explanation. John 1:14 seems to me to be alluding to the much repeated formula of God being our God, we being his people, and he dwelling among us. Leviticus 26:11-12 comes to mind. There we find out that the tabernacle should be among the people because He is our God and we His people, and He will walk among us. Jesus is fulfilling the picture the tabernacle gave us. I do think John 1:14 is referring to the picture of the tabernacle and the temple, but instead of reading John 1:14 as a First Century Jew and think of Jesus serving like the Temple as a way God works among his people, we ought to view the temple as a picture of Jesus. In short, it seems to me Wright wants to take his First Century Judaism and let that dominate his view of Jesus, and I think we should take out view of Jesus and let that dominate the view of Judaism.

In summary then I do not buy Bishop Wright’s explanation of John 1:1-18 because he seems to brush aside too much by claiming the Temple view, and because John is clearly beginning with the self away Second Person of the Trinity and taking to himself a human nature. This more than implies a divine-human who is more than self-aware. The only way to get to Wright’s self aware human who is unaware of his divine nature is to fall into Nestorianism by making two persons. The text does not allow it.

Getting back to Bishop Wright and Christology

Easing our way back into the N.T. Wright discussion I want to stress a few things before getting into the Scriptures. As we examine the Scriptures we will be looking to refute the main proposition of N.T. Wright’s new christology.

Let me be clear, also, what I am not saying. I do not think Jesus “knew he was God” in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself “Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!”

I am saying that Jesus did know he was the second person of the Trinity and that he was self-conscious about it. I think the Scriptures teach that as well.

One might think that this a pointless debate, but I believe that it is a real one. Bishop Wright gets taken to task a lot for his views about Paul and Justification, and rightly so. However, N.T. Wright is also re-writing Christology and it is going under the radar, or at least it is not getting the same fire as his views about Paul. It is something that I think this generation of the church will have to struggle with again. Listen to the Right Reverend Wright on the subject.

Let me put it like this. After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word “god” itself. The portrait has been redrawn.

Bishop Wright has no problem confessing creeds like Chalcedon, Nicea, and the Apostles, but he means new things by the words he finds there. The idea that one can keep a creed with the same wording and throw out the meaning is disturbing enough, but the self-conscious re-writing of Christology ought to strike at the very heart of the church. Of course a re-working of Christology can and will often lead to a re-working of the Trinity as well. Now, I cannot speak for Bishop Wright and his view of the Trinity, and we cannot take his confession of ancient creeds because of his willingness to put his own meaning into other people’s words. But, the ball is rolling, Wright is influential, and you will see the Trinity under attack before you know it.

*All quotes from Wright in this post are found in his article "Jesus and the Identity of God

N.T. Wright Methodology

Bishop Wright has done a lot of study on First Century Judaism or more broadly Second Temple Judaism (from here on 2TJ). His knowledge is far beyond mine in that area. Bishop Wright makes Second Temple Judaism the centerpiece of his theology. He uses it to frame his questions. Just one example:

Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview? (Jesus and the Identity of God)

It is through the lens of 2TJ that Wright redefines Christology as well as other things like Justification, Covenant, etc. Some of objected to his understanding of 2TJ, and they may indeed be right. Again, my knowledge would be far to inferior to even weigh in on that debate. However, I would like to see more time spent on debating whether or not Wright is doing the right thing by framing all his understanding of the New Testament off of 2TJ literature. That seems to me a more basic and more methodological question. Allow me to list several things that I believe need further clarification from Bishop Wright before his redefinition can begin to be debated.

1. Judaism in the First Century was not monolithic, how can one know which framework Jesus fit? Much like Christianity today Judaism had lots of different types and differing understandings. We know of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two could not even agree on what constituted the Bible. First Century Judaism would have embraced both Josephus the Romanized Jew as well as Zealot leader Eleazar ben Yair whose followers committed suicide rather than face being conquered by the Romans. We also know the Essenes would have been in existence adding yet another sect with yet another different outlook upon all the questions that Wright deals with. Which 2TJ framework do we impose on Jesus when we seek to understand how he used the word ‘Logos’ or his view of the temple and of the prophets?
2. Why must we sift the NT through a 2TJ view of the world rather than a Hellenized Jews view of the world? It is true that all of the writers of the Bible were Jews, but were they Hellenized Jews or more strict 2TJ Jews? This seems an important question when it comes down to deciding whether or not to accept a Jewish spin on a word or a Greek spin on a word. Paul, the author with the most books in the Bible, was from Tarsus, a highly Hellenized city whose philosophers and library rivaled Athens. John who five books of the NT seems to be writing to a highly Greek or at least non-jewish audience. He even goes so far to define the word rabbi in John 1:38. This has great import in the reading of the Christological passage of John 1:1-5. Remember that Joseph the earthly father of Jesus spent time in Egypt a place more inclined toward Greek views of life than Judaic views on life. Could that not have played a pivotal role in Jesus’s upbringing?
3. If Jesus is self-consciously divine would not this place him above the discussion at hand. This gets back to my criticism from the last post of assuming the answer in the question, but it is worth mentioning again. Jesus as God could be far above the fray of Judaism as it existed in the first century.

Most importantly is this last and final objection.

****Why should we take a Jewish understanding of Jesus since it was the Jews who misunderstood Jesus, turned him over to be killed, and persecuted the early converts to Christianity.*******
It is a legitimate question to ask if any of these Jewish sources should be used in our understanding of Christ in the first place. Just look at what the Scriptures say on the matter.

John 5:46, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."
John 8:39, "Jesus saith unto them “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham."
2 Corinthians 3:14, "But their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which vail is done away in Christ."

The point is this: why do I want to use the First Century Jewish understanding to enlighten the Bible. The First Century Jewish understanding did not understand the Old Testament, let alone the New. Bishop Wright can argue about what 2TJ thought about God until he is blue in the face, because their actions show they did not understand God at all. Bishop Wright has made no reasonable argument to show why the 2TJ should be accepted as a legitimate way to understand the OT or the NT. I hope that in the books that I have not yet read he deals seriously with the verses quoted above and the several more just like them. Until he does, he has not proved anything. Until he does, his methodology must be rejected.

However, I would be remiss if I did not deal with the Scriptural arguments he uses. So next we will turn to those arguments.

N.T. Wright on Person and Nature

Bishop Wright is attempting to navigate difficult academic questions by reformulating Christology. He puts the difficulty this way.

I think it offers a way through the impasse between saying either ‘Jesus knew he was the second person of the Trinity’ or ‘Jesus was just a human being who had no thought of being divine’. But to pursue this further we must come to the substantial topic.

He goes on to show again his distaste for traditional formulation of Chrisology especially the formula of Chalcedon. Again using his words:

I simply don’t think it’s good enough to talk about two minds (or one), two natures (or one), or about the various combinations rind permutations of persons and substances. Any such discussions should be grounded in Jesus himself. But when we try to talk about Jesus himself we may find that, in the first instance at least, our enquiry leads in quite a different direction.(Jesus Self Knoweldge)

Before we examine Bishop Wright we should see what the Ancient Councils have to say about Christ’s person. Here is the relevant portion of the Formula of Chalcedon.

recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

Chalcedon makes the claim that Jesus has two nature, one divine the other human, but is only one person. The question immediately comes up what is the difference between nature and person. I believe the creeds are fairly consistent on this point, and looking at some of the others we can discover what is meant. Chalcedon itself mentions that Christ has a ‘human body and reasonable soul.’ So we can chalk reason and physical bodies up to nature. The controversy erupted and was settled in the next ecumenical council about whether or not Christ had one will or two. The answer given by the church (from Scripture of course) is that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Chalk the will up to nature.

Other creeds give us more a glimpse of what is considered part of the nature or substance when we examine the Trinity itself. God is three persons in one substance or one nature, ie. divinity. The The Athanasian Creed states that the one nature of God includes three persons. That shared divine nature includes the glory, majesty, and power of God. All of that is found the substance, not in the person. What then is left to the person? It seems something akin to consciousness. It seems in the Trinity (remembering this is a bit of a mystery that we will not know until the Lord comes again) there are three consciousness that are distinct and separate, but share one will, one power, and one glory because they share one nature, the divine nature.

So we can apply that to Christ, and say that Jesus Christ has only one consciousness, but two wills, two powers (a divine power and human weakness in this case), so on and so forth. It is this that I believe Bishop Wright has openly violated. Asking the question what does the human Jesus of Nazareth know about being the Son of God is denying that Jesus Christ has one consciousness. It is implicitly saying, the human nature of Jesus is not conscious or aware of the divine nature within him. It necessitates two consciounesses in Jesus Christ, one for the ‘unaware’ human and one for the divine second person, assuming of course N.T. Wright believes Jesus to be both. Simply by the statement of Bishop Wright’s question he has already rejected the Chalcedonian formula.

Admittedly this leaves us a little in the dark as to what Bishop Wright would ascribe to nature and what he would ascribe to person, if he would even hold to such a position. I have not been able to find anything online where he dives into that topic. However, he does show us that much of his position is motivated by a rejection of Western Ideas of knowledge, in favor of his First Century Judaism view of things. Notice also the inability of Bishop Wright to answer a question straight, which should be enough to worry us all. It is one thing to be scholarly and understand words may have meant other things in bygone days, it is another to use that excuse to duck the obvious questions asked of him.

It seems obvious that from here we must now proceed to an examination of Bishop Wright’s methodology since he uses it to exclude the historic orthodox Christian position.