of Vision over Visibility

The Officers in Church Government

2011-08-29T09:44:00.000-07:00

The example of the Apostles and their writings define the role of church officers as, “publicly recognized leader[s] having the right and responsibility of performing certain functions for the benefit of the whole church.” The first formal office is that of elder. The New Testament calls this same office by other names in a synonymous fashion calling elders also, “pastor,” “overseer,” or “bishop,” (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:5—7 NASB). 1 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 5 both attribute to this office the role of ruling and governance over the local body. In Ephesians 4 and 1 Timothy 5 the Apostle Paul further defines the office as responsible for teaching. Thus, one may conclude from the biblical evidence that the office of elder serves the church in both a ruling and teaching capacity.

In the context of the nature of church governance, one also finds a strong emphasis on the shepherd-like, servant nature of elders. Based on Paul’s listed qualifications for elders, one finds that elders, above all else, are examples to the flock. Therefore, their rule and teaching must not be tyrannical or arrogant, but rather intentionally demonstrated through their lifestyle as well as through their words. This strong emphasis on the church community leads Strauch to affirm the necessity of elder leadership in the local church body. He writes that the office of elder most resonates with the church’s mission and nature in humility under the headship of Christ.

However, not all scholars agree on the unified nature of elders as both rulers and teachers. R.S. Rayburn argues that because different passages of Scripture define elders in different ways that the office of “elder” cannot be applied universally, but particularly. He offers, instead, that churches should have specifically appointed teaching elders and ruling elders. G.W. Knight disagrees. Knight argues that in the context of the church’s communal nature a dichotomy between clerical and lay elders must not be drawn. However, Knight does agree with Rayburn that teaching elders should be distinguished from ruling elders. Both arguments fail, though, to stand against the biblical evidence. Paul’s emphasis in 1 Timothy 3 and 5 on both the potential leader’s grasp of doctrine and management abilities suggest instead that an elder must be able to both teach and rule. Though some elders will perform one duty more than the other duty, an elder must be able to do both.

The second office described in the New Testament is the office of deacon. Contrary perhaps to its use in some churches, deacons are not rulers but primarily servants and administrators in the church. The word in the Greek for deacon, diakonos, means servant. Though not explicitly addressed, the office appears to be established in Acts 6, where the Apostles appoint certain men to attend to the church’s administrative matters. 1 Timothy 3 addresses the office specifically, listing deacons’ responsibilities to include the financial matters of the church, administrative responsibilities, ministry to the physical needs of the church, and visitation and counseling.

Grudem argues that the New Testament provides two methods of church officer appointment: divine institution and congregational election. In a period of the church where revelation is limited to the written Word of God, the Bible, congregational appointment, thus, seems to be the biblical method for choosing church officers. Examples include Acts 6 and 15. However, some argue that the precedents set in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 lean toward appointment by an outside superior governing body, or Episcopalianism. Neither of these passages, however, excludes congregational consultation in the process of appointing church officers. Moreover, the word translated, “appoint,” could also signify, “install.” Thus, these two examples neither negate congregationalism nor set a definitive alternative model. Further, biblical instances of church discipline exemplify the case for congregational authority. In both Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 the final authority on the expulsion of a church member rests with the entire congregation.

The nature of church governance as demonstrated throughout the New Testament, along with the explicit passages on church office, demonstrates a plurality of elders to be the most biblical form of church government. In recognition of the congregation’s authority and indwelling of the Spirit, those individuals in a given local body who meet the qualifications should be recognized by the church body, elected by common vote of the church’s members, and then submitted to in teaching and governance. Such a system will enjoy both paid-vocational elders, commonly called the pastor in most churches, as well as lay elders who serve on a volunteer basis. Grudem argues in defense of the plurality of elders writing, “Within such a system the elders govern the church and have authority to rule over it, authority which has been conferred by Christ Himself, the head of the church, and by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17).”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 905.
Case, “Pressures on presbytery,” 89.
Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 109.
R. S. Rayburn, "Three Offices: Minister, Elder, Deacon," P 12 no. 2 (1986): 113.
G. W. Knight, "Two Offices (Elders/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study," P 11 no. 1 (1985): 2.
Ibid., 4
Dever, “The Doctrine of the Church,” 795.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 920.

The Nature of Church Government

2011-08-25T09:42:00.000-07:00

In an age characterized by man’s ingenuity, when laud showers the application of modern business administration into ecclesiastical settings, the Bible has fallen into great neglect as a guide for church government. Churches function more like corporations than communities of faith. Many others maintain a mob mentality when it comes to decision-making. Both spectrums demonstrate the abandonment of biblical principles for anthropocentric models. Though Scripture does not make explicit statements on how churches should govern, the New Testament abounds in examples and implicit principles. This essay argues that the Bible teaches churches should govern in a congregational elected plurality of elders model.

The nature of church government rests in the priesthood of all believers. Peter demonstrates Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church in Acts 4:8—11, and Paul teaches that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 1:13. Therefore, the nature of the church depends upon the acknowledged supremacy of Christ by indwelled regenerate believers. Likewise, the church’s ability to govern itself and its worship requires the cooperative fellowship of believers. Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, writes, “The fundamental responsibility under God for the maintenance of all aspects of publish worship of God belongs to the congregation.”

As aforementioned, just as the nature of church government stems from the incarnate nature of Christ in the church, so, too, the authority of church government emanates from the person of Jesus. The ability and necessity of the church to govern itself rests in the church’s mission and commission. The church’s government should enhance and support its kerygmatic mission to advance the Kingdom of God. Thus, the authority of leaders is not contained within their positions and titles but within their service and equipment of the church to fulfill its broader mission. Further, church leaders must adopt Christ’s model of shepherd-like care over the flock. Thus, the biblical evidence suggests that authority is not ontological or given by the church, but, instead, tied to one’s service to the Body of Christ.
The responsibility of church government, therefore, concentrates on the church’s corporate worship and mission. Michael Kinnamon argues that the heart of the church is covenantal accountability. The role of leadership exists then to foster and enhance this aspect of the church. Alexander Strauch concurs arguing the New Testament frames the roles of church leaders in the church’s family-like nature. Leaders must operate within and enhance the sibling-like relationships that characterize the every-member ministry of the local body.

A brief survey of the nature of church government illustrates the cooperative elements of governance as well as the servant-like nature of individual leaders. Church government exists for the church and its mission. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the church’s government operates according to the church’s nature and mission as defined by Christ and His Apostles. The establishment of the office of Apostle demonstrates the significance of church office and its application to the church’s mission. Though the office held by Paul, Peter, John, and others no longer exists, the office of Apostle paves the way for the local church’s officers today.

John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2005), 151.
Mark E. Dever, “The Doctrine of the Church,” in A Theology for the Church (ed. Daniel L. Akin; Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 795.
Parackel K. Mathew, “Church government in the New Testament," CV 24 no. 3 (1981): 165-167.
Robert A. Case, "Pressures on presbytery" P 4 no. 2 (1978): 89.
Michael Kinnamon, "Authority in the church: envisioning the answers," LTQ 40 no. 1 (2005): 12.
Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (Littleton, Colo.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 109.

Why Christians should care about Anti-Muslim sentiments

2011-07-25T05:23:00.000-07:00

Last week's shooting and mass murder in Norway has shocked the Scandinavian, European, and global community. But the forces and emotions behind the attack were anything but a surprise. The gunman claimed he hoped to spark an anti-Muslim revolution (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43878104#43878104). Over the last decade anti-Muslim sentiments have rapidly grown through Europe ranging from racist threats in France against northern African Muslims to immigration laws requiring conservative Muslims from speaking out publicly against immorality. All these efforts designed to dissuade Muslims from immigrating to their country and communities.
I believe these actions, as well as the most recent tragic events in Norway, require Christians to speak out on behalf of the Islamic community; this is much more than an issue "someone else" is having to deal with. First, we have the great ethic of Christ to love our neighbor and live as salt and light of the earth. The Muslim community is experience a great injustice, most recently at the hands of a person claiming allegiance with Christianity. Not only is this wrong, but it continues to close doors for the Gospel in Muslim communities.
Second, we need to see these actions against Islam in the big picture and understand the motivating forces behind it. The reason Europe has reacted so negatively to Islam is because European Muslims are dedicated and committed to living out their faith and a very conservative morality which flies in the face and condemns most European lifestyles. Anything, therefore, that the masses of postmodern, post-Christian Europe encounters as contrary to their new ways of living they reject and condemn. This world hates anything that bears any resemblance to goodness, and though we know the doctrines of Islam to be false, there is no denying their moral practices resemble many of the virtues of the Bible.
It is only a matter of time before those behind the anti-Muslim attacks set their sights squarely on the Church. There was a time when many though Islam would soon become the worldwide dominant religion; but I now think it clear that it will be Secularism; the view that man is supreme in his knowledge and reason, and is free to pursue whatever makes him happy. Anti-Muslim sentiments are an indicator of the rising Secularist sentiments and should disturb Christians.
We, therefore, have a responsibility as neighbors to defend Muslims as well as people of the Word to denounce Secularism and immorality.

Learning to do Theological Triage

2011-06-13T05:26:00.000-07:00

It's an idea that's hardly original (I first heard of it from Al Mohler, but who knows who was the first to make the argument), but of great necessity today in Evangelicalism. It is the difference between hurt feelings and doctrinal purity; time-consuming endless debates and decisive breaks of fellowship. This idea is called theological triage. Most are familiar with these two words, but perhaps not when used together; theology being the study of God, particularly in a Christian context as revealed to us in the Scriptures; triage being the medical practice whereby doctors treat the most dire and urgent needs first before treat the lesser injuries (i.e. treating a gun-shot victim before treating a severe splinter). This practice allows doctors to save lives in the most efficient manner.
Theological triage, then, could be described as treating various aspects of the Christian faith according to the fundamental nature to the faith. In other words, there are primary issues, secondary, and tertiary (and if you really are up to it, I imagine you could keep going from there.) Primary issues are those things that without which, the Christian faith is no longer the Christian faith. These are the doctrines that make us Christian such as Justification by Faith, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity. If a church or group of people reject a primary issue then we can no longer have Christian fellowship.
Secondary issues are those issues which do not determine one's orthodoxy, but does affect how much cooperation we can have with one another. These issues include, but are not limited to, infant baptism, church polity, etc. While we may be able to work with, worship with, and fellowship with those who have different views on secondary issues, we cannot plant a church with them. For example, two of my closest friends are an Anglican and a Presbyterian. I love them to death, but the baptism thing would prevent us from planting a church together.
Tertiary, and subsequent levels you may want to devise, are those issues which are a matter of personal practice. Depending on the culture and prevalent views, most often you can do all the above and more with those whom you simply disagree with on such issues. These issues may include the use of tobacco and alcohol, styles of preferred worship and dress, etc. We can easily worship and serve in churches together with those whom we disagree on tertiary issues.
It is vital that we as Evangelicals, both locally and globally, learn to distinguish primary from tertiary issues. Many a useless battle has been waged over tertiary issues needlessly. Many believers, in fact, change their views on tertiary issues throughout their life, and so we should not be so quick as to draw a line in the sand over such topics. Further, we must remember that it is our Faith which we must defend and protect, not necessarily the ways we practice it. I can remember massive church debates in the mid-90s over "contemporary" music, folks willing to quit the church if the church allowed a guitar to be played. (F.Y.I. when it first came out the pipe organ was view in the same light, seen as an abomination to God's worship.) It was a useless and self-centered war over the tempo and accompaniment of God's worship. Few were concerned with the actual worship of God, they were more concerned about the mode. And while God's worship is something we should take seriously, we mustn't lose the real meaning over differences of personal tastes.
The same rings true today of any tertiary issue. They are important to discuss and to edify one another with, but we must not lose the Gospel in our obsession with lesser issues. Our personal convictions are good, but we must not mistake my own interpretation as infallible and the law of God. Where Scripture allows leeway, let us do the same, so long as we remain fully committed and devoted to the advancement of the Gospel for the glory of our great God.

The Need for a Literal Adam

2011-06-08T11:59:00.000-07:00

A recent cover story in Christianity Today has revitalized a debate which has dominated Christianity for the last two hundred years. How are we to reconcile or relate Science and Religion? To some, the two seem incompatible. To others, the two can be equally accepted so long as kept separate. This recent article, however, (found at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html) represents a recent trend of the fifty years (perhaps even longer). This trend is that where science seems to disagree with the Bible, we must compromise the Scriptures in order to fit into this new scientific model.
This topic at hand is evolution and the Garden of Eden. Fossils of ape-like creatures, who resemble in certain features humans while also remaining in other features very ape-like, have led scientists over the last hundred years to argue that human beings must have evolved from lesser species. Christians have rejected these claims in part because the Bible claims that God directly made man as well as because the theology of the New Testament (particularly Romans) rejects this logic as well. Now emerges a middle camp who want to support macro-evolution of species changing into other species but also want to affirm the biblical significance of Adam and Eve.
I will let you read the article yourself (I would also recommend to you the editorial that accompanies the feature story). Suffice it say, I believe we must stand firm in our biblical convictions and reject any claim which would cause us to compromise its message. We do this with Rob Bell's recent book, not because we dislike Mr. Bell, or because we don't like what his book has to say. We reject it because his book disagrees with the unequivocal message of Scripture. Likewise then, when Science asks us to conform the message of Scripture to its supposed "facts," we, again, must reject this. Without a literal Adam there cannot be a one Saviour for all.
Paul, when he wrote the epistle to the Romans, was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; therefore, we know he was not misunderstanding or misinterpreting Genesis. Therefore, we know he is not being allegorical when he states in 5:12, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," he is being literal. If sin did not enter through the first Adam, then the work of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, can hardly be ascribed to us. But the merits and blood of Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, can be ascribed to those who believe. Paul writes, "18 Through one act of righteousness [n]there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." Our salvation is dependent upon this truth.
Therefore, be on your guard. Be prepared that no matter what evidence or craft speech comes your way, you will not waver from the truth of Scripture. That is where we must stand and place our full confidence or hope; otherwise, we have no hope or knowledge of Truth at all.

The Cover-Up: Jim Tressel vs. Josh Hamilton

2011-06-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

If Richard Nixon taught us anything, it is that the cover-up is always worse than the crime itself. This past week, Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel finally resigned from head coaching due to numerous NCAA violations and infractions. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, for the last nine years, it would seem, Ohio State football players have been trading memorabilia for tattoos, cars, etc. This is a big no-no in college sports. But, this is not why Jim Tressel had to quit. Instead, a year ago when he found out about this he did nothing, but tried to keep the story quiet and tell his players to stop. Again, this is a big no-no but is not why he had to quit. Tressel's major transgression occurred in December when the NCAA found out about the players and they asked Tressel if he had any knowledge. Tressel lied, claimed this was the first he had heard about it, and tried to cover-up the last year of in house cleaning. About two months ago, it was discovered in the investigation that Tressel had known, and had lied to the NCAA. This was his epic failure.
Now, let's step over to baseball, and a few years back. Former Raleigh baseball standout Josh Hamilton squandered away the first five years of his major league baseball career by becoming a drug addict. The phenom cheated on his wife, threw away his career, all for crack cocaine. Through the prayers of family and ministry of pastors Hamilton eventually became a believer and became drug free. Last year he earned the American League Most Valuable Player award (the most prestigious individual award for an active player.) The relevance to Tressel, however, comes a few years back, when in his second season since returning to baseball, Hamilton agreed to go out to dinner at a bar with some teammates. Though he hadn't drank alcohol since getting clean, he had a few drinks that night, got slightly intoxicated, and was caught in a rather too-comfortable position with a few women at the bar. He had messed up. He had used when he shouldn't have (being a recovering drug addict and alcoholic) and was acting in an inappropriate way with women other than his wife. He knew he had failed. His difference from Tressel? The next morning he woke up, realized what he had done and immediately called his wife, told her what happened and asked her forgiveness. Afterwards, he called the team owner and manager and did the same. Hamilton didn't try to cover up his mistakes, but confessed to the people he needed to, received their forgiveness and moved on. Two months later, the story and pictures became public, and yet, it was a non-story. For when reporters confronted Hamilton, his wife, and his team, all admitted that they already knew, Hamilton had come clean and they had forgiven him. What could have been a major story, didn't even last a day on the news cycles.
As Christians, though we are saved from condemnation, though we are counted as righteous by the blood of Jesus, though we cannot lose our salvation but are secure in Christ, we still have lasting effects from the sinful life we led before Jesus. We also sometimes get lazy and allow new sin in our lives. We still fail. We still mess up. We are not perfect and will not be until glorification in Heaven. The lesson we learn from Jim Tressel and Josh Hamilton is that we must guard ourselves against pride and remain humble, recognizing how weak we are on our own power and constantly seek God's forgiveness and the forgiveness of those whom we sin against. We mustn't think that we can "get away with it" because this is an attitude contrary to the nature of the Spirit who dwells within us. Accept your failures, seek to eliminate them from your life. But live graciously and with humility. Confess your sin when it happens and avoid the inescapable spiral downward that lying and pride lead to.

Back in the Summer Swing

2011-06-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

Brief word of apology for my month-long sabbatical: after finishing my master's, putting together ordination ceremonies, and a vacation/anniversary with my bride...it's been a busy month. No excuses though...we're back in the swing of things and so here is to more habitually blogging and interfacing on important issues in Christian living!

Cheers!

bin Laden: My first response

2011-05-02T05:12:00.001-07:00

I have mixed emotions this morning. I, like you all, have vivid memories of 9/11/01. I remember my shock, my rage, my uncertainty. Moreover, I remember thinking to myself what a great day it would be when we finally "got him." And here that day has come; and I don't feel as I expected. I am relieved to know that we have finally been successful in this decade-long mission. I do feel a bit safer today, knowing the head of the snake has been cut off. I pray for those affected on September 11, perhaps they feel a sense of justice.
But I wonder how much comfort those who lost loved one really feel today. Does bin Laden's death make the loss any easier? It certainly does not bring anyone back. I am sure there are some who do feel vindicated today and are celebrating. I am sure there are some who are pleased to see the news, but still acutely feel the pain of their loss. More than anything I am sure that bin Laden's death brings back up lots of painful emotions and memories from that day. Today is a day we should be offering prayers for these men and women once more. We should each be reminded that our God is God of justice. He is the True and Perfect Judge. I am reminded of many of the Psalms where David bemoans the prosperity of the wicked, only to be reminded that this life is but a fleeting moment, and that the wicked will perish and the righteous exalted.
On a day where America touts itself as the executioner of judgment, let us be mindful that we are all imperfect people, incapable of perfect judgment and justice. I celebrate and thank God for our nation's safety, but I also thank God that He is the Perfect Judge and that He offers sinners like you and I, who deserve judgment, salvation from condemnation. Let us place our hope in our Sovereign Lord above all other things and cast our anxieties and uncertainties upon His merciful and gracious ear.

Encouragement in our Sufferings concerning Death

2011-04-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

This afternoon I had the pleasure to visit with a near 93 year old member of my church. Ms. Ray can no longer walk, has loss over half of her muscle mass, and has to rely on near constant care. I asked her after an hour of talking, how I could pray for her, to which she responded with tears in her eyes, "You know I'm just so thankful how God has cared for me." There is much that Ms. Ray could complain about but instead she is thankful.
The other interesting thing I found in the conversation was how comfortable Ms. Ray was with talking about death. She spoke of her own mortality with tremendous peace in a very matter of fact manner. As I spoke of the Gospel and the celebration of Easter, I could see the hope in her eyes of her own resurrection and heavenly body which awaited her.
This visit confirmed my initial feelings about the contemplation of death, and that being that Christians should find tremendous encouragement and comfort in all our present sufferings when we meditate on death. Ms. Ray was confident of the eternal hope she has and therefore her present sufferings could only affect her but so much. Whenever we read the words of the apostle Paul in the New Testament we get the same picture. Despite his imprisonment, physical ailments, isolation, and "thorn" Paul rejoices and looks forward to death. The gain of death makes his present sufferings not only bearable, but opportunities for worship.
James speaks of the perfection of our faith which is gain through suffering. Clearly, we know that our faith and endurance is never perfected in this life and so what I believe the apostle is hinting at is that this life will be marked by suffering but it prepares us and enables us to draw true joy and fullness in our death. When our eyes are fixed on the Kingdom and the glorious bodies we will enjoy then at the banquet table of the Lamb, then we will we are able to endure a great many sufferings in this present life.

The Graciousness of Life in the Contemplation on Death

2011-04-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

I think we're all familiar with the saying, "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone." While cliche, it's true (as most cliches are!) And the same thing applies to life and death. When death seems real to us, life becomes all the more valuable in our minds.
This past weekend, central North Carolina experience horrific tornados and storms. Lives were lost, property destroyed, and for two hours we all just sat and watched the radar to see if we were in the mighty storm's path. Such an experience reminds us of how powerless we are, how out of control we are, and how frail and vulnerable our lives truly are. Such an event reminds us vividly of our mortality and that at any moment our lives could end. Living off of Route 98, the artery between Wake Forest and Durham, provides me with daily examples of how quickly our circumstances could change. I watch endless streams of cars, running 70 mph, travel this road daily and I think to myself, "All it would take is one blown tire, one swerve, one mistake, and we'd have a massive auto accident on our hands."
Such contemplation and realization of our mortality isn't meant to be a morbid endeavor or make us fearful of leaving our homes. Rather, it should simply cause us to live our lives in a constant gratefulness to God for His security and for our lives. I think it is more difficult to explain not why God allowed some to die in the tornado, but why more people didn't die or were injured. Colossians 1:17 tells us that in Jesus all things hold together; that He is actively maintaining all things; if He were to let go, all things would cease to be.
A contemplation of death helps us to see what a great gift daily life is. The fact that you safely made it to work today is a gift of God. The fact that your home didn't collapse in on you and your family last night is a gift of God. We are mightily and abundantly blessed by Him. When we pray to Him and say cliche phrases like, "Thank you for bringing us here together today," let us stop and reflect on the truth which we are proclaiming. Let us thank God earnestly and acknowledge His grace toward us. Life is a gift and we should daily and hourly worship and thank Him for it!

Assurance of Faith through a Contemplation of Death

2011-04-13T05:44:00.000-07:00

At the outset let me apologize for these seemingly morbid blog titles! Looking at them, I'm like, jeez. But I promise they are meant to be hopeful and I think they do lead us to hope in our immediate and eternal lives.
This past weekend Teresa and I attended a memorial service for her uncle who had passed that week. As I sat in the service and looked at old pictures, listened to hymns sung, and watched others respond, I was overcome with a sense of hope and assurance in my faith. I suddenly had no fear of death because it was apparent that death was not an end for me, or for those I love who are in Christ. There was certainly mourning for the temporal loss of a loved one and for those whom he left behind, but i realized that a healthy contemplation of death and my own mortality actually produced an amazing assurance of faith. When we contemplate death we remember how our old self has been put to death on the cross and we have new life (Col. 2:12). When we meditate on our end we realize that we have been made for more and God has a grander plan and destination for us. Eternal life and salvation from sin seems more amazing to us when we wrap our minds around the reality of death. Therefore, we can see how such a healthy contemplation of death can produce an assurance of faith.
When we do so I think we attain to a closer and more vibrant understanding of Paul's statement in Philippians 1:21, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

A Healthy Contemplation on Death: The Example of Pilgrim's Progress

2011-04-12T10:17:00.001-07:00

Within the last week or so, the topic of death has come up quite a bit around me. Our church is preparing this week for the Lord's Supper, where we contemplate and reflect on the death of Christ and the death of death itself. A loved family member of my wife passed this past week and we spent Saturday morning in Myrtle Beach for the funeral. A close loved one of my own is refusing to allow friends and family to celebrate their landmark birthday this year out of anxiety over aging and mortality. In each of these circumstances I've been forced to think on death in different aspects and have come to the conclusion that as believers we should regularly engage in a healthy contemplation on death.
Now the reason I say, "healthy," is because there is, of course, such a thing as an unhealthy contemplation on death. One where we are consumed with morbid notions or futile questions about the timing of our death or what have you. However, there is much to be gleaned from a Biblical perspective on death. As I shoot off the cuff I can think of at least five ways or reasons why we should meditate on death: preparation for the time, assurance of our faith, thanksgiving and appreciation for our life, excitement and anticipation for glory, and peace and encouragement in our present sufferings. Over the next week or so I'd like to flesh each one out for our edification and for our encouragement.
First, a healthy contemplation on death prepares us for our own death so as to ensure that we "die well." Boy, that's a funny phrase, is it not? "Die well?" But I am convinced that there is such a thing as dying well and dying poorly, so hang in there with me for a bit. Genesis 1 & 2, as well as Ephesians 2:10, are just two examples of passages in Scripture which so us that our primary function and purpose in Creation as the imago Dei is to worship God. We are vessels which are intended to magnify and exalt His glory. Through salvation in Christ fallen persons are enabled to once more exalt God in all they do on this planet, in sort of a dress rehearsal for eternity. I believe most of you would easy concur with this assessment.
I fail to see why death should be any different.
If our marriages, our employment, our recreation time, our parenting, etc. are all meant to glorify God, then why not our death as well. James tells us that trials and suffering produces endurance and a steadfast faith. What greater trial and what greater suffering is there than death? Therefore, it seems apparent to me that dying for the individual should thus be both an occasion for worship and for the increasing of faith. It is a time when even though uncertainty and fear may beckon us to break, we exalt our great God knowing that He satisfies our every need. Moreover, it is a time when grow in our faith, and our example should inspire others' faith to increase as well.
I think Pilgrim's Progress, the classic and timeless Puritan allegory by John Bunyan, exemplifies this truth. As Christian and Hopeful meet the end of their journey they are required to cross the River of Death before entering the Celestial City. Hopeful has no problems crossing the River, whereas Christian struggles and fears he will drown. Through Hopeful's encouragement he eventually perseveres but with great difficulty. We should aspire to cross the River of Death as Hopeful does, trusting in the promises of Christ and worshiping well. Only through, however, preparation for our death, I think, will we truly be able to do so. If we neglect to labour in this endeavor then we will be blindsided and caught unprepared, suffering and struggling through death as Christian did. However, through a healthy, Bible-centered contemplation on the temporality of this life and the eternal joy which awaits us, I trust that through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, we will be able to die well.

What I would say, if I were Debbie Yow's Pastor

2011-04-06T14:26:00.000-07:00

What better way to kick start my blogging with Ridgecrest, then with a little local college basketball drama! For my non-North Carolinian readers, I would suggest checking out ESPN.com’s college basketball section for some context, but for my Triangle-area readers (especially you Keith’s), I am certain you’ve by now heard the infamous, “sabotage” comments.
The avid sports fan in me loved it! In a world of Bellichekian “mum’s the word” and the constant need to save face, to get such blatant honesty was, well, awesome! Forget how well or poorly she may do her job, the sheer, uh…fortitude, that Debbie Yow demonstrated in calling out Gary Williams I think earns her a pay increase. Moreover, as you all know, my deep disdain for all things Maryland, of course, earned my instant approval.
However, as a pastor, and simply as a Christ-follower, I think there is more to be said. Now, for the record, I have no idea if Debbie Yow is a believer or not, and, really, that’s not my main purpose here. Because I think the recent fireworks call to mind the issue of airing dirty laundry in public. Our congregation here in Wake Forest will in a couple weeks celebrate the Lord’s Supper, and Paul offers us serious warnings about taking the Supper improperly. One such manner would be taking the Supper while holding animosity or discord with another person.
I don’t fault Debbie Yow for what she perceives to be wrong doing by Gary Williams. However, Jesus tells His disciples in Matthew 18 that when such wrong doing and transgression occurs we are to approach the other person in private. Then, if such endeavors fail, with another person or two, and then, finally, bring a group, or the entire congregation. While Yow’s comments made for good entertainment, let us take these events as a reminder of how not to resolve differences. Whether it be secret animosity toward another, or blatant betrayal, we are to resolve our differences with one another in a Christ-like private matter, or else we drink and eat judgment upon ourselves. Let us bear in mind another statement of Jesus’, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matt. 7:2).

Alcohol: My Perspective

2011-03-05T07:43:00.000-08:00

Concerning the specific topic of alcohol consumption, the Bible only prohibits its abuse and use for drunkenness. In those passages which do explicitly prohibit alcohol consumption, the context suggests that God only prohibits certain individuals from drinking, though not all children of God. Therefore, to suggest that Scripture prohibits all believers from alcohol consumption overstates the Biblical position. The Bible instead focuses on the personal and corporate holiness and even-mindedness of God’s people for His glory and service.
The New Testament, as a whole, addresses alcohol under the heading of the Christian witness and worship of God. Such passages indicate that believers are to regard alcohol less as a matter of legalistic rule making, or an opportunity to add measures to the canon, but more in the context of their lives and bodies as holistic instruments of worship of God. Because believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit they can rest assured that the Spirit will either assure or convict them of their decision to drink. Drinking is a matter of faith of whether or not God is glorified in one’s life, dependent on the believer’s humble submission to the Lord and earnest seeking of Him. Scripture suggests that God can be both glorified in consuming one beer as well as deprived of His glory in drinking one beer.
Yet, believers must also recognize the baggage that alcohol carries as a topic both within and outside of Christianity. Sensitive to those around us, as humble servants to all men, even though it may be lawful for Christians to drink, it may not always be beneficial or loving to both believers and non-believers. First, concerning within the church, new believers may often carry negative associations with alcohol as a drug that characterized their life before Christ. To drink in front of them may cause stumbling in their walk in regards to the call to turn from their old life toward Christ. Second, some believers, both matured and wise in the faith, may simply find alcohol sinful for their own lives. To drink in front of them may tempt them to renege on their conviction, or simply hurt one’s fellowship with them. In both instances, Christian freedom dictates that for the sake of Christ, that alcohol should be avoided.
In regards to the Christian witness in the world, believers must recognize that in many societies and contexts, alcoholism is a rampant disease and carries numerous negative feelings. To drink in such a situation harms the Christian witness and call to be light and salt of the earth. Christianity is a call to holy lives of worship and praise of God. For many unbelievers alcohol does not seem to fit with the concept of holiness. Alcohol consumption can thus nullify the Christian witness and make believers appear to be hypocrites who live according to this world and not the next. Because of this possibility, Christian freedom dictates that alcohol consumption, though not in and of itself unholy or unclean, should be done so privately for the sake of the public Christian witness.
Therefore, Christians are free to enjoy alcohol so long as it does not make them drunk or control their senses or judgment (i.e. “buzz drinking), and, they can do so free of doubt or conviction by the Holy Spirit. However, because a believer’s first obligation is to the humble service of one another as an act of worship and love for God, one should refrain from drinking in the company of believers who hold a conviction against alcohol, though not lie about their own conviction, or in public settings where one’s witness may be tarnished.

Alcohol: The Scriptures

2011-03-04T07:42:00.000-08:00

Psa. 104:14-15: “14He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, 15and wine which makes man's heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man's heart.”
Prov. 23:21: “21For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe one with rags.”
Rom. 14:23: “23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.”
1 Cor. 8:9,12: “9But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak…. 12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
The Constitution of the Holy Apostles: “We say this, not that they are not to drink at all, otherwise it would be to the reproach of what God has made for cheerfulness, but that they be not disordered with wine. For the scripture does not say, ‘do not drink wine’, but what says it? ‘Drink not wine to drunkenness.’”
Calvin: “When God daily gives us a large supply of wine, it is our own fault if his kindness is an excitement to luxury; but, on the other hand, it is an undoubted trial of our sobriety, if we are sparing and moderate in the midst of abundance.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.”
Barth: “The man who avails himself of them does so on his own responsibility…[but] by his actions he must on no account cause the ‘weak’ man to do anything that to him would be sin.”

Alcohol: The Issue

2011-03-03T07:40:00.000-08:00

Whereas the generations of the early to mid twentieth century in American evangelicalism generally prohibited alcohol consumption, at least among its leaders, today’s younger evangelicals do not seem to recognize alcohol as an issue even worth debate. Their senior counterparts seem to concur that there should be no need for debate, as well; because they believe all should agree that alcohol consumption is evil. In fairness, the issue ranges beyond age or occupation. For Christians the issue stands on one of two viewpoints: what is permissible or what honors God most in one’s life? Yet even within these two perspectives the line can still appear hazed. The debate is rarely objective, but, rather, most often influenced by one’s cultural context and social situation (i.e. the laborer from St. Louis whose livelihood depends on Anheuser-Busch or the daughter of an abusive alcoholic). An objective position must rely on more than one’s feelings while also keeping in consideration the deep associations that some people do have concerning alcohol.
Some have advocated, to the point of requirement for church membership or employment, complete abstinence from alcoholic consumption as a means of ensuring that such individuals will avoid the potential for abusive drinking. Others contend that Christian freedom opposes man-made laws and that drinking is a matter of personal conscience. Through application of the Biblical texts that speak on alcohol, as well as Christian relations, a general rule can be devised that embraces true freedom to Christ and a heart to see God worshiped in every area of one’s life.

Creation Care: My perspective

2011-02-24T06:41:00.000-08:00

Opponents of Creation Care argue that evangelicals should focus their attention only on moral issues. Yet, if morality is defined as the principles and topics which distinguish good behavior from wrong behavior, then treating the earth properly as God commanded man to do ranks as equal a “moral issue” as abortion or homosexuality. Jesus ranked only two commandments of superiority over the rest; therefore, believers should regard the rest of Christ’s commands equally without denouncing some in favour of promoting others.
In Genesis, God gives man dominion over all creation, charging him to its maintenance and care. Sailhamer argues that the Hebrew words of 2:15 are best translated as “worship” and “obey.” From this interpretation it is clearly shown that man’s care over himself, his family, and his world are vital, and essential, components to his right worship of God. Though the earth is not equal to man, who is the imago Dei, it still is of significant importance to God and should be cared for and not abused. The earth ultimately is for man’s rest and enjoyment and nourishment. Its abuse not only denies God of His fullest worship, but bears practical, negative consequences for man.
The Bible demonstrates that even though sin corrupted Creation, the earth is still to be cared for and maintained. Unfortunately, because of sin, man’s task in its maintenance, and moreover, in directing it in worship to God, is far more difficult and greater than in the Garden. Nevertheless, man maintained dominion over the earth after the Fall and the commands of Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 continue to hold. Christ’s entire ministry, as well, points to the continual importance of all of creation and its inclusion in redemption. Paul writes that creation groans and suffers the impact of sin but that it, too, is to be redeemed in Christ.
Believers understand deeply the tension between the “already” and “not yet” that Christ brings to the earth. Through His death and resurrection, sin was defeated and the new age was inaugurated. Yet, in His perfect wisdom and will God waits for its complete fulfillment and the establishment of the new earth. The earth, together with believers, waits in this eschatological anticipation. Christians should not simply allow the destruction of the earth because they know it will be made perfect by God, but rather should uplift it and value creation because of its prominent place in the Kingdom of Christ.
Just as in all matters of righteousness in Christian life, believers do not obey the prescripts of Scripture in an effort to be a rule-keeping people, but because in their transformed hearts they desire God and to worship and love Him. A heart that recognizes its Creation-set command to worship and obey God does not care for the environment because specific passages in the Bible say so. Rather, a heart of worship seeks to conserve and preserve the earth because God simply loves His creation. Scripture declares that Christians are co-heirs with Christ to be glorified with Him and rule over Creation. That responsibility, based on the love of Christ which believers are driven by, calls for direct action in this age to prevent global warming, resource depletion, and environmental destruction as a Creation command and ordinance.

Creation Care: The Scriptures

2011-02-23T09:39:00.000-08:00

Like torture, here are some things I've been looking at along the way.

Genesis 1:28 “God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 3:23 “Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.”
Psalm 24:1 “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.”
Hebrews 2:8 “You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.”

John Chrysostom “A steward’s duty is to administer well the things that have been entrusted to him. The things of the master’s are not the steward’s but the reverse—what is his really belongs to his master.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer “In the sweat of his brow man wrests his nourishment from the soil, and the range of human labour soon embraces everything from agriculture and economy to science and art. The labour which is instituted in Paradise is a participation by man in the action of creation. By its means there is created a world of things and values which is designed for glorification and service of Jesus Christ.”
Norman Geisler “Like everything else, Christian ecology flows out of Christian theology. Our view of the world flows out of our worldview. Since biblical Christianity has a theistic worldview, it will be distinct from both materialism and pantheism…a Christian view of the environment grows out of the doctrine of creation.”
John Piper: “There are behaviors that destroy the environment. And Christians should make a case from Scripture that God means for us not to burn the house down that he gave us to live in.”

Creation Care: The Problem

2011-02-22T09:27:00.000-08:00

Sunday evening at Ridgecrest, we began with the question, "Why is it that we remain on earth once we are saved?" I think it's interesting and important for us to ask why does God desire for us to continue to live on this earth? The context of this question came to us through Matthew 5 and Jesus' teaching on salt and light. However, to take this question in a slightly different direction, I think its important to see how God's commandment to cultivate and keep the earth also answers this question.
That the earth is the Lord’s and that man has been given dominion over the earth would seem to entail a responsibility before God for the care of the earth and all that dwells within it. God created for His own glory and to see all that He made reflect His glory in worship. Just as it is plain sense that murder is wrong because it destroys the imago Dei and deprives God of His maximum worship, so, too, in a sense, does destroying creation deprive God of the glory due Him for the wonders and beauty of the earth.
Yet, evangelicalism contains sharp divisions within its ranks concerning the topic of Christian ecology, particularly when it comes to the topic of global warming. In the last decade, fundamentalists such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell have denied the existence of global warming, arguing that to devote one’s energy and activism toward Creation Care is ”earthism” worship. Regardless of the scientific facts of whether or not man-made initiatives are causing harm to the earth’s climate, that man harms the environment through industry is without debate.
Opponents of Creation Care fear that focus on ecology takes focus away from “moral” issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Proponents argue that Creation Care does not compete for attention but rather should be one of the many platforms that Christians champion. Just as Christians oppose abortion because it destroys innocent life that God created, so, too, should they oppose environmental recklessness and poor stewardship because it destroys the earth that God created. Creation Care and prevention of global warming are essential to Christian stewardship and worship of God. Believers are responsible before God to maintain the earth and offer it in its fullest to God as a fragrant aroma of worship to Him.

Torture: My perspective

2011-02-21T09:33:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 5:44, Jesus demonstrates that the Law of God directs man towards love in all things, including one’s enemies, using the word “enemy” to signify one’s persecutors. Moreover, Jesus demonstrates this love beyond simply commanding believers to do so. Though He suffered and died for the elect, He treated His enemies with compassion and love, even healing them. Jesus’ instructions and example demonstrate that Christians should treat all people with love and compassion, even if they are regarded as a terrorist or criminal.
Yet, one should be careful in applying all the texts of Scripture that speak on how Christians should love. Whereas Jesus said believers should love their enemies, the Bible does not require that one should treat and forgive one’s enemies exactly as one’s Christian brethren. Most of the New Testament passages on love and unity speak to the Church and should therefore be limited to ecclesial application. Based on the Biblical example and ethics, Christians may support and admonish the apprehension and detention of those who impose and inflict harm on others, both regarding them as criminals while treating them with love and compassion. Any sort of application of physical, emotional, or mental harm to such prisoners contradicts the commands of Jesus and His apostles and therefore should be opposed in all instances.
Beyond the moral and spiritual grounds for the opposition of torture, the United States is also bound by law to refrain from torturing prisoners. As a participating and leading nation in the United Nations, the United States has subjected itself willingly to the laws and treaties of this international governing body. According to the “United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” fully prohibits the use of torture and coercive measures on prisoners by its signees. According to the Biblical standard upon which Christians must make their position, the United States by law must not torture any prisoners.
As noted above, however, the United States has sought to obey the law, while also pushing the limits of the law to the brink. While Scripture does not explicitly define what torture is and is not, nor provides examples of what would violate Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor, the New Testament does abound in positive examples of righteous and holy living. Paul exhorts believers to view their entire lives as opportunities for worship of God, rejecting what the world declares to be right and wrong (in this case pragmatism) and embrace the heart of Christ. Moreover, the Christian life, which includes the positions Christians hold and actions they take, should be a witness and reflection of the love of Christ and glory of His name. From the perspective of having the heart of Christ, therefore, the question about torture becomes not “what is permissible” but “what is the most loving.” Christ demonstrated what love is, ultimately in giving Himself over to death. If believers, while maintaining the civil duty to apprehend and detain those who wish to harm and destroy, view their mission to do so as guided by the love of Christ, whether or not it is right to torture will never even come into question.

Torture: The Scriptures

2011-02-20T09:31:00.000-08:00

To help you think through this issue (because I don't necessarily want you to come to the same conclusion as me) here are some pertinent Scriptures and quotations I've found thus far:

Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Matt. 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
Romans 12:17 “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.”
1 Thessalonians 5:14-15 “And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men. See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men.”
Basil of Caesarea: “I have become acquainted with a man who demonstrates that it is possible even in the military profession to maintain perfect love for God and that a Christian ought to be characterized not by the clothes he wears but by the disposition of his soul.”
Calvin: “We learn from these words, how far believers ought to be removed from every kind of revenge: for they are not only forbidden to ask it from God, but are commanded to banish and efface it from their minds so completely, as to bless their enemies.”
John MacArthur: “‘Do not be overcome by evil’ has two meanings and applications. First, we must not allow the evil done to us by other people to overcome and overwhelm us. Second…we must not allow ourselves to be overcome by our own evil responses. Our own evil is infinitely more detrimental to us than is the evil done to us by others.”
Scott B. Rae: “Civilians, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war cannot be objects of attack.”

Torture: the problem

2011-02-19T09:27:00.000-08:00

So I was watching Battlestar Galactica (yeah, that's right...I admitted it) and they were torturing this "cyborg" if you will. And I got thinking about it ethically. Combine with it the amount of violence going on today in North Africa and the Middle East, stirring in our own issues as Americans whether it be global terrorism or domestic, as in the case of Tucson, and how we treat criminals is an extremely pervasive and hot issue. And so, today, I'll simply state the problem...let you think on it, and we'll go from there...

American Evangelicals claim to be a people of the Word. They most often also claim to be strong patriots, eager to defend and promote the American way of life at great cost. In this particular context, the topic of torture will be explored in the American context, defining torture as a physical, mental, or emotional affliction enacted by a captor on a defenseless prisoner. The problem in American Evangelicalism centers on the question of which viewpoint reigns supreme when pragmatism and Scripture conflict?
This question may be divided into two sub-categories: “Is torture wrong” and “What defines torture?” Since the events at Abu Ghraib were first exposed, evangelical leaders have opined that the inhumane treatment of prisoners is wrong, yet very little has been put forward to set Biblical parameters for what defines inhumane treatment. The Christian community seems aware of the issues of torture, but are we willing to risk our national “security” to define a strong stance against it?
Unfortunately, the secure notion of “it’s them or us” has crept into the Christian perspective, replacing the Biblical stance of “love your enemy” with a pragmatic approach to observe the letter of the law regarding torture - while bending and pushing the law to permit whatever means necessary for the obtaining of information from prisoners of war. A proper Biblical position, however, dictates that while civil society has the right to, and indeed should, detain and restrain those who seek to destroy innocent life, criminals should be treated lovingly as image-bearers of God and, therefore, civilly and without any form of coercion, questioned and not tortured.

Issues that we're Talking About

2011-02-18T12:15:00.000-08:00

I think I've said this before, but let me reiterate it, I really like us. I mean we are despicable in our actions, but so glorious in Christ. We are so blessed that His Spirit dwells in us! And I really like how folks in the church, folks who are really scrupulously investigating the Scriptures, are wrestling with certain issues.
Let me state my bias. I am a Southern Baptist. I think when you line up all the issues Southern Baptists narrowly win the day on a Biblical model of church (perhaps just ahead of those Presbyterians). Baptists affirm the autonomy of the local church, believer's baptism, and congregation polity. And whereas I consider myself a Reformed theologian, I think most practicing Presbyterians no better embrace that kind of theology than the Baptists do (in other words I've met as many Arminian Presbyterians as I have Baptistic ones). And so the way I approach a lot of issues come from a Baptist view. However, I have many friends in many denominations and so I consider myself well connected. Furthermore, I consider myself as having a pretty steady finger on the pulse of the way Biblical evangelicals are thinking these days. And frankly, while each of us fall short, I am overjoyed at how willing I find my brothers and sisters to test every part of their personal convictions against Scripture.
With that said, I've been thinking about a couple issues within the last number of months that I think appropriate to comment on. The first being torture in an age of terrorism. The second, global warming and care for the environment. And, finally, alcohol and Christianity. Over the next few days/weeks I'd like to share what I've found on each issue and perhaps get one or two of you to interact with me via comments on these issues. So...perk up, get your Bibles in hand...and let's get going.

How Killing Sin Produces Vigor in Our Spiritual Lives

2011-02-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

The mortification of sin in one's life does not necessarily lead to peace and strength in the Christian life. Instead, John Owen aptly notes that strength and peace are aspects of our spiritual life which we are given by virtue of our adoption in Jesus Christ. In other words, because we are saved and in Him, the Spirit blesses us with peace and strength. Thus, during periods when we feel weak or a lack of peace, it may not be necessarily because of some sin in our lives.
However, Owen does point out how the mortification from sin can produce positive effects on our spiritual life. He says that sin does one of two things: it will weaken the soul or it will darken the soul. Nothing else in the world will directly weaken or darken the regenerate soul in Christ. Even during trial and temptation, the person that abides faithfully in the Son will continue to walk in strength and peace. It may be more difficult to do so than at other times, and we may grow weary, but our perseverance and hope will persist. Therefore, the mortification of sin may be viewed as the process of removing weakness and darkness from our souls.
Owen writes that mortification prunes all the graces of God and makes room for them in our hearts to grow. In other words, this process of killing sin is then not only a destruction of that which hinders us, but it is the lifelong process where we surrender ourselves more and more to glory of Christ and the indwelling of His Spirit.

May both our lives become abundant, fertile fields for the harvest of God!

The Illogic of Self-Cleansing

2011-02-11T06:12:00.000-08:00

This morning I read chapter three of Owen's Mortification of Sin and wanted to share a few points of interest from the chapter. Most notably, Owen dedicates the majority of the chapter to discussing false means of mortification, or, in other words, the incorrect ways which men attempt to destroy sin. We certainly get a healthy dose of seventeenth century anti-Popery language, but we also find at its core a very logical argument which I find rings very true today. Owen writes that the root of man's attempts to rid himself of sin is, "that [in] attempting rigid mortification, they fall upon the natural man instead of the corrupt old man,--upon the body wherein we live instead of the body of death." The main idea of his section seems to focus on the notion that man continues to try to use his natural faculties of his flesh rather than recognizing that it is that flesh, itself, which is sinful.
I find this to be one of the most difficult concepts to work out in theology, that being the truth that we are made new in Christ, and yet still sin and must fight the deeds of the flesh. Church history shows us how this idea has been shaped by Greek philosophy and taken to the extreme by the idea that the flesh is the prison cell of the soul which we all seek to escape. Such a view completely ignores the intention God has for restoring our bodies and giving us perfect resurrected bodies. However, we must recognize that "the natural man" is the very problem or origin of our sins. The habits of sin still survive though our spirits are made new. Whether from Satanic temptation or simply falling back into old sinful routines, the "natural man," or who we are apart from Christ only leads us away from Him rather than towards Him. Thus, Owen argues that any attempt to use our natural faculties or inventions to fight sin is truly illogical.
So, then, if we are regenerate in Christ by salvation through grace alone by faith alone, how is that we continue to sin? Surely, sin does not come from the Spirit, Who is Holy, who dwells in us. To offer a very simple glimpse (which most likely still has errors in it) I think we must first affirm what the Bible says about the Christian and the power of sin. Paul says in Romans 6:14 that sin holds no dominion over the believer, or is no longer his master. In 1 John 2, John says that believers will no longer walk in pattern of sin. Therefore, the Biblical witness testifies that in Christ a person is free from the bondage of slavery and is no longer ensnared in the habits of particular sins. Jonathan Edwards describes in his Freedom of the Will how its man's moral will which is set free from sin and is made able to love and follow Christ (Eph. 2). However, our memories remain from past sins which conjure up in us the desire to sin and daily we are exposed to unholiness and impurity throughout the world. Thus, while we are no longer compelled to sin, our regenerate bodies are still able to do so, and, indeed do.
Therefore, if we truly desire to mortify the sins in our lives, we can in no way expect these fragile bodies to do so alone. Rather, as Owen argues, we must submit ourselves to the work of the Spirit who first regenerated us (Isa. 57:17-18). Through faith and dependence in Christ we are conformed to His mind and His heart (John 15:5). Owen points out three ways by which this will occur:

1) By causing our hearts to "abound in grace" (i.e. filling us with the knowledge and joy of Jesus Christ)
2) By cultivating in our hearts a hatred for sin
3) By sharpening and deepening our sense and understanding of the Cross of Christ

As he points out at the end of the chapter, believers continue to have a responsibility in the process of the mortification of sin. The Spirit is able to do these things so long as the vessel is willing to be worked on. Thus, believers must engage in an active passivity in which they labour continuously to submit themselves to the work of the Spirit, choosing obedience and fellowship with Christ, and petitioning the Spirit daily.

Hebrews 1:1-3: Christ the Son Eternal and Exalted

2011-01-22T06:01:00.000-08:00

This week I began a new memorization endeavor: the book of Hebrews. As a I seek to memorize its contents, I also want to share some of the fruit with you as I come across particular passages of interest. Is it bad to say that? It makes it sound like some passages of God's inspired Word are interesting and others are not. This is not what I mean, of course. It is only to say that as I get moved or motivated to make remarks on certain passages I will be sure to share them here. (Perhaps it'll become a Saturday/weekend kind of thing)
The beginning of Hebrews is one heck of a beginning. I mean put aside letter formalities because BANG Hebrews kicks off with a boom! The opening three verses are packed with amazing Christological teachings and volumes could be said (indeed, our Puritan friend John Owen wrote volumes on this single epistle). However, for the purposes of this blog I find two particular things of interest which I think are often neglected in the study of Jesus Christ. First, when we think of Jesus, the Son of God, we immediately think of the Incarnation, His earthly ministry, death and resurrection, and the kingdom to come. All of these things are true and accurate implications to Christ the Son. However, we rarely mention Christ as the Son before the Incarnation. If we are not careful, the way we describe Jesus as the Son can make it seem like He became the Son when He became Incarnate, which is absolutely false. Jesus has not only always existed in the Trinity and is eternal and fully God just as the Father and Spirit, but He has always existed as the Son. Now, what does that mean? Well, Jesus has always submitted Himself to the will of the Father and has always sought to glorify and magnify the Father. Thus, He has always, even before Creation was, been the Son. The author of Hebrews (from here on out designated as the A.H.) thus writes that this eternal Son was the agent of Creation, through whom everything that is, was made. Therefore, just as Jesus Christ is the Son for eternity to come, the Bible teaches He has been the Son since eternity past.
The second point worth note is the concept of Christ as the revelation of God. When we think of God making revelation we usually think in two categories (whether we use these terms or not): general and specific revelation. General revelation, or natural, encompasses things like nature and the conscience which gives all mankind a sense of God's existence and His moral will, though is insufficient for salvation. Specific revelation is nearly always referred to as Scripture. By definition, as juxtaposed with general revelation, special revelation is that which God specifically reveals to mankind about Himself making salvation and knowing Him possible. While the Bible is our primary example of special revelation, it is not the only. I believe Hebrews 1:1-3 portray Christ as the special revelation of God. The A.H. writes that whereas in the past God spoke through prophets, God now has spoken directly through His Son. In other words, when we are in Christ and we hear His call, we are hearing the direct words of the Almighty God. Moreover, in Christ we experience and see the full glory and nature of God. Faith, therefore, is not just a matter of a relationship with Christ, but truly brings a relationship with the Father as well! This passage makes me think of John 14, where Jesus tells the disciples, "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." This also echoes Colossians 1:15 which says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
Thus, when you seek Christ and you abide in Him, remember the vast nature of God which you are now exposed to and brought into reconciliation with. Our world so often seeks to minimize Christ as to this great teacher alone. Even in the church we see the gracious work of Christ on earth more prevalently then we contemplate the vast existence and nature of God which has been made apparent before us in Christ. Your Christ is God! This indeed in an incomprehensible mystery which we have the gracious pleasure of contemplating and exploring through Scripture study and prayer until we are literally face to face with this eternal and exalted God in the kingdom. May we both be continually gripped by the vast glory of Jesus Christ.

Grinding Incense

2011-01-21T11:49:00.000-08:00

A number of years ago a mentor of mine gave me this little trinket that it looked like he had stolen from an apothecary. At the time we were working together at a church where I had begun leading worship. Near the end of the summer he presented me with this grinder over lunch as a symbol to remind me that in the Old Testament era, priests would have to grind incense before burning it as a fragrant offering to the Lord. So, too, as a worshipper, I must be ground to be a fragrant aroma to God. (For those of you who can guess who this gentlemen was, this story should not seem surprising).
To this day I have kept the grinder on my bookshelf near the section on Puritans and Jonathan Edwards. These brothers in the faith when to great lengths to ensure that their entire lives were a worshipful fragrance to God. Edwards is often noted for his painstaking efforts in his diet so that he would not grow lethargic and neglect his study of Scripture. As a poor writer who seeks to be a great one, I take an inordinate amount of time in my lessons, sermons, and writings to ensure that I have properly and thoroughly dealt with the topic I am studying. I want everything my listeners hear and my academic readers read to flow logically, impress upon their consciences, and demonstrate the call of God. I believe I could say that I am painstaking in such endeavors, even though I fall short quite often in the execution.
However, this afternoon as I glanced at the grinder as I have done for the last six years, I was suddenly reminded/convicted that too often I neglect to allow myself to be ground down in preparation for worship. I am reminded of Ephesians 2:1-3, in which Paul reminds his readers how lost they were before salvation and the utter death that consumed their meaningless lives. I pair this passage with John Owen's treatment of Romans 8:13, in that remnants from this terrible life that we led apart from God still battle within us. Praise God that the death of this death is an endeavor that the Triune God had covenanted Himself to on our behalf, "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that, not of yourselves, for it is a work of God." Yet, I ask myself, "am I allowing God to grind me down more and more into a fragrant offering to Him?" Do I both actively seek to participate with Him in destroying sin, while also actively allowing Him to search my heart and call me to a greater likeness of Christ?
The call we all as followers of Christ share is that we would daily continue to die to ourselves and live more in Christ. I believe the imagery of the incense grinder is a convicting reminder of how daily, tediously, and comprehensively this call to mortify sin truly is.

Owen: The Holy Spirit and the Death of Sin

2011-01-19T15:30:00.000-08:00

Owen's first chapter addresses Romans 8:13, taking this Scripture as the foundational command to Christians to put sin to death. Paul writes, beginning with verse 12, "So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." The English Standard Version translates verse 13 to say that if you live according to the flesh, you will die, as opposed to "must" from the NAS. The NAS to me seems to emphasize, thus, the guilt and condemnation that living according to the flesh brings, whereas the ESV (and Owen, too) emphasize the logical conclusion of death which results from living according to the flesh. Both, I believe, are correct ways to think about it in that obedience to the ways of the sinful world brings condemnation, however, death is also worth noting to be the absolute, unchangeable result of living according to the flesh. Perhaps, one's audience would influence which emphasis one makes. Owen writes to presumable believers, and therefore, is not as concerned with the penalty for sin, as for the negative consequences believers will face if they do not mortify the sins in their lives.
Either way, what struck me most in Chapter One is the emphasis Owen places on the role of the Holy Spirit in the mortification of sin. He argues that the Spirit is the "principal efficient cause" of putting sin to death, which, in other words means that believers are simply participants and executioners of that which the Spirit is carrying out in our lives. At first, a mature believer may say, "Well of course its the work of the Spirit," but I would counter, "Do our actions and the way we try to destroy sin in our lives really reflect this belief?" In other words, when you actively seek out to destroy some sinful habit in your life, is that process principally driven by the Holy Spirit or by your efforts?
There are numerous examples I could use to highlight this point from alcohol to internet pornography blockers. In particular, I think about my own journey with smoking. In 2006 I served with the International Mission Board as a short-term missionary in Ireland. According to IMB policies, I was asked not to smoke while serving. Whereas I had never smoked cigarettes, I did enjoy the habit of pipe smoking. After dinner at night, and often once more in the late evening, I had smoked a pipe since I was eighteen. However, in order to be an ethical Christian, I sought to not do it while serving with the IMB. Within a week I think I had gained 10 pounds already, because after dinner I found myself so craving something that I would order a big desert and then go eat probably four to five Snickers bars. I realized that I had not been addicted as much to smoking, as I was to having some sort of habit in and of itself. Not allowing me to smoke did not cease my addictive tendencies at all, as I simply placed them somewhere else. My wife can attest to how when I stopped drinking, I replaced it with chronic milk drinking.
As silly as it sounds, the sin in my life was not smoking (though I know a few of you would disagree with that) as it was that I was a slave to things apart from Christ. In my own endeavor I had not even threatened my sin with death, but rather disguised it. Such an example demonstrates the utter failings of a principal human cause to the mortification of sin as opposed to a Spirit-led approach. Do internet blockers help believers to cease looking at internet porn? Absolutely. Do they make that person stop lusting? I would argue no. Simply using an internet blocker treats the symptom without ever addressing the disease. Owen writes, "Mortification from a self-strength, carried on by ways of self-invention, unto the end of a self-righteousness, is the soul and substance of all false religion in the world."
We must recognize that though we are in Christ, our flesh is still weak and we are just as incapable of treating ourselves as we were at saving ourselves. God alone is mighty and capable to mortify the sin of our old corrupt lives. Does this mean that we shouldn't use internet blockers or milk to replace whiskey? I don't think so at all. God made us rational beings and calls us to flee from sin. Godly wisdom would dictate that we take practical steps to assist the endeavor of sin mortification. However, we must be intentional at ensuring that such man-driven endeavors are not our starting place. Instead, when you are convicted of sinful habits in your life, remember that the starting place lies in prayer and supplication of the Holy Spirit. Petitioning Him for strength, guidance, and power precedes all our other endeavors. Only through the Holy Spirit may we actually kill that sin as opposed to simply wounding it.

Should a Christian refuse gay guests at a B&B?

2011-01-18T14:50:00.000-08:00

To catch you up, here's the article I came across this evening on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

I won't comment on whether or not the ruling against the owners of the B&B is just or not because, frankly, I have no clue how English discrimination laws work. What I wondered as I read this article was what the proper Christian response should be in such an instance. If you owned a hotel and a gay couple asked for a single room, would you admit or refuse them? What would the Bible advise? I don't think they should be refused as restaurant or store, but when you operate a business that concerns sleeping together, do you have an additional responsibility to encourage righteous living and refuse service to those who are seeking to live contrary to God's laws? If you would refuse the gay couple, would you also refuse the unmarried couple? I would think you would have to for the sake of consistency. In fact, I know of a few places, and counties where unmarried couples cannot sign a lease together for a home (I had a co-worker find himself in this precise situation years ago before he got married). Are such places to be commended or are they being "un-loving?"

As I myself think through this issue this evening, I'd welcome any thoughts of your own!

An Intro to John Owen's The Mortification of Sin

2011-01-18T00:01:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you, but I had a fairly negative perception of the Puritans until the last year. The word itself conjures up images of boredom and irrelevancy. Also, grade-school stories about the Pilgrims and the Salem Witch Trials created in me a picture of stuffy, dispassionate people who had gone the way of the Dodo bird. However, last spring (Spring 2010), under the teaching and direction of Dr. Andy Davis, I began reading their theological works from the seventeenth century and found an amazing trove of treastises and theological volumes which seemed to me to find a perfect balance between academic theology and personal Christian growth and maturation. The Puritans, including titans such as John Bunyan, Ralph Venning, John Flavel, and John Owen (apparently John was a popular name), tirelessly exposited the Word of God and its implications, while always seeking to apply such efforts into the lives of their congregants. For the Puritans, the result of theological study should be Christian maturation, not in a sense of growth in knowledge, but, rather, growth in Christ-likeness. Their writings and sermons both challenge how you think about God, as well as how you think about your everyday life.
As part of my personal Bible study time I have decided to read through one such work by John Owen, The Mortification of Sin. Christian living consists of two processes: the killing of one's sinful habits which remain from one's pre-conversion life (which the Puritans called the mortification of sin) and the expansion and growth of those virtues which we receive from Christ when we justified through faith (which the Puritans called vivification). Owen's guide treats both the theological issues concerning how Christians still must battle sin, as well as offers practical steps for doing so. As I read through his work, I hope to make a few comments here and explore just how we as believers can truly kill sin in our lives. We'll see what comes up. I take Owen's purposes in writing for that of my own, that being, "to press more effectually on the consciences of men (and myself!) the work of considering their ways, and to give more clear direction for the compassing of the end proposed."

Back at It: An Introduction to Paddy's blogging

2011-01-17T11:57:00.000-08:00

As I am entering my final semester of master's work I have decided to resume blogging after an eighteen month layoff. Much to your delight, I presume from some of the personal comments I have received, I hope to engage more with some of the books I am reading, from theological works to Scripture, and interact less with specific research topics that I am currently working on. I hope that this change will engage my readers more and provide me with the opportunity to wrestle more with topics of Christian spirituality (or precisely put, Christ-following) and current affairs.
The more and more I interact with grade-schoolers and 20 to 30-somethings, the more I realize how little we as a generation really interact with the culture around us from a Biblical worldview. A few weeks back I read D.A. Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited and was particularly struck by his analysis of the Baby Boomer generation (more or less those born from 1946-1964) and Generation X (more or less 1965-1976). While I will defer a full analysis of these generations to my sociological counterparts, suffice it to say that each of these generations made significant turns from the worldviews of their preceding generations, particularly in how they considered Christianity, culture, and work. The world they created and promoted was the world that my generation (Generation Y, Echo Boomers, 1976-1991) grew up in, and, subsequently, the world we have reacted to/against. Isn't it interesting how many of our parents (speaking to the 20 and 30 somethings) worked tirelessly their entire lives to succeed in business and climb the corporate ladder compared to how many of us have either intentionally or unintentionally have reacted against that model to seek jobs in the marketplace that are "more fulfilling" or will have a "greater impact."
Again, I could go into great detail on this topic and reference numerous friends who have spoken these exact desires to me. However, my purposes here are simply to say, that Christians today are earnestly seeking to find meaning in all that they do, and yet, many are lost at how to do so. Many suffer from lack of example, others from lack of training. Most have grown up in a church and Christian culture that is more interested in "Christian debt-relief" and "Purpose-driven" Christianity rather than simply opening the Scriptures and explaining their meanings. Many in our churches are simply Biblically illiterate.
My hope with this blog is to at least entertain some topics in theology and discipleship that will challenge us to become more Biblical-centric Christians and less 21st c. American Christians. Many of the topics will emanate from things I, myself, am reading and wrestling with. Others will come from news events/stories that I find interesting. I call the blog "of Vision over Visibility" from a lyric from U2's single "Moment of Surrender." I love this song and this lyric because it accentuates how man is prone to see the things right before him in culture and in life, and yet, is utterly blind to Truth and seeing things as they really are. I hope that this blog will help us both have Christ's vision for our lives and for the world.

cheers

Modus Revelatio: Bibliography

2009-05-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Pegis, Anton C. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Pegis, Anton C. New York: Random
House, Inc., 1948.

Aquinas, Thomas. Compendium of Theology. Translated by Guyot, G.H. Manchester: Sophia
Institute Press, 2002.

Bonino, Serge-Thomas. “The Role of the Apostles in the Communication of Revelation
according to the Lectura super Ioannem of St. Thomas Aquinas.” Reading John with St.
Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Dauphinais, Michael, and Matthew Levering. Washington
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

Jenkins, John I. Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.

Kaczor, Christopher. "Thomas Aquinas on the Development of Doctrine." Theological Studies
62, no. 2 (Je 2001).

Kenny, Anthony. An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006.

The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Edited by Kretzmann, Norman, Anthony
Kenny, and Jan Pinborg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Martin, R Francis. “Sacra Doctrina and the Authority of its Sacra Scriptura: According to St.
Thomas Aquinas.” Pro Ecclesia 10, no. 1 (Winter 2001).

McGaughey, Don. “Thomas Aquinas and the Problem of Faith and Reason.” Restoration
Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1962).
Nichols, Aidan. Discovering Aquinas: An Introduction to His Life, Work, and Influence. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

Persson, Per Erik. SACRA DOCTRINA: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1970.

Yarchin, William. History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2004.

Modus Revelatio: Conclusions on Aquinas

2009-05-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

To reject all of Aquinas’ work on the doctrine of revelation would prove a great disservice to the Church. In many Baptist churches, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is largely ignored and disregarded out of fear and rejection of some of the mystical notions that have been associated with the Spirit. The Church must acknowledge and teach the importance and significance of the doctrine of illumination. Knowledge of the Triune God and His Word are impossible apart from the illumination of the Word by the Spirit. Aquinas’ teachings on how the Spirit illuminates and the necessity of comprehension in the study of Scripture both align with the Bible and provide useful and needed discourse on this much neglected topic.
All in all, Aquinas places far too much value on the Church hierarchy and the use of the intellect alone in his doctrine of revelation. Though he rightly affirms the supremacy and inspiration of Scripture, Aquinas fails to put them in their proper place in Christian living. Aquinas was perhaps a victim of his times, as the Middle Ages was a period dominated by hierarchy, not only of intellect but also of human value. It was believed that the king was not only more important to society than the beggar, but his life was of greater worth to God as well. Needless to say, within the context of the Church the worthless lives of the laity were believed to be incapable of intellectual thought, let alone of doctrinal and Scriptural comprehension. Aquinas’ doctrine of revelation, therefore, was both a product of the world in which he lived as well as the capstone of its theological foundations.

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas' Impact in the Church

2009-05-19T06:50:00.000-07:00

As a result of the virtues and vices of Aquinas’ doctrine of revelation, the Church must progress cautiously with prayerful caution when it looks to the medieval theologian’s discourse on faith, reason, and revelation. Sadly, the Catholic Church is laden with the negative effects of Aquinas’ teachings. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed the rapid growth of the heresy known as Mysticism. Feminine works such as Marguerite Porte’s The Mirror of Simple Souls employed Aquinas’ discourse of the beatific vision, teaching that through deep contemplation, starvation, and self-denial one could be so illuminated by the Holy Spirit that a woman could experience sexual gratification with God. Less extreme works, although still anti-Biblical such as The Cloud of Unknowing, taught that through contemplation one must completely reject oneself and all modes of the Church in order to allow the Spirit to illumine and eventually absorb one’s consciousness into the Divine Essence.
Apart from the Mystic’s writings on contemplation, the Church itself placed a tremendous emphasis on Aquinas’ hierarchy of intellects. His works were used to justify papal infallibility as well as the equality of Church tradition with Scripture. Today, the Catholic Church continues to labor under poor theology as Catholics are taught that mediation through an ordained priest is required to know God and His essence. Most Catholics remain ignorant of the Word, its teachings, and therefore, of Jesus Christ.

Modus Revelatio: The Vice of Aquinas

2009-05-18T06:49:00.000-07:00

Much within Aquinas’ doctrine of revelation goes beyond Biblical warrant. First, Aquinas overextends the hierarchy of inspiration and intellect found in Scripture. Whereas the apostles received direct, divine inspiration to write the Scriptures, no evidence, either Scripturally or in early Church history, exists that the Biblical office of “Apostle” persisted after the death of John. Putting aside the Catholic-Protestant debates of apostolic authority and papal infallibility, however, Aquinas’ entire hierarchy of intellects seemingly contradicts Scriptural material on illumination. Paul writes that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Christ taught that the Spirit of God teaches, guides in truth, and discloses both the truth and the nature of God to all believers. Because the Holy Spirit ministers to believers indiscriminately, the Spirit speaks through the Bible equally in order to illuminate all believers. Though instruction and discipleship are extremely valuable in the development and maturation of a believer, all one really requires to comprehend God are the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Since all believers are equally justified and reconciled to God through one faith by one baptism, all receive the same one indwelling of the Spirit.
Second, Aquinas’ dichotomy between faith and knowledge further lacks Biblical warrant. Scripture primarily teaches that the Holy Spirit helps to generate faith in believers. Prior to this imputation of faith, the Spirit convicts sinful man of his corruption. In order to convict as well as to regenerate, the Spirit must bestow to man knowledge of the truth of the Word of God. The entire mode and process of the formulation of salvific faith seems Scripturally predicated upon real, comprehensive knowledge. While knowledge alone is insufficient for faith, faith apart from personal knowledge of Christ is impossible. Paul exhorts believers to have the mind of Christ and to set one’s mind on heavenly things. The call to Christ and Godly living extends beyond irrational, blind faith and submission to ecclesiastical instruction. Rather, Scripture teaches that the most faithful, Godly persons will possess the greatest knowledge of the Triune God. Faith cannot be separated or disjointed from Godly knowledge.

Modus Revelatio: The Virtue of Aquinas

2009-05-17T06:48:00.000-07:00

Aquinas’ doctrine of revelation is not without virtue or Biblical warrant. First, he rightly estimates the limited capacity of man to know and comprehend God. Whereas the first man, Adam, was created in the imago Dei and walked daily in the Garden with God, as a result of the Fall his soul and capacity for knowing God became corrupted and limited. Even after being justified through the work of Christ, believers still require the indwelling and sanctifying ministry of the Holy Spirit for communion with the Triune God.
Furthermore, Aquinas’ distinction between recognition of what the Gospel says and sincere comprehension of its contents aligns with Scripture. Many men, as well as demons and Satan himself, have “recognition” of the contents of the Bible, yet have no knowledge of God. Even for believers, simply reading the words of the Bible does not ensure real comprehension of its meaning. The perspicuity of Scripture includes the ministry of the Holy Spirit and His illumination of the believer to the Bible’s contents. Aquinas begins to err, however, on who the Spirit illuminates, which hereafter will be addressed.
Second, Aquinas correctly notes that some believers are called to teach and preach the Word of God. Not all believers are specially gifted by the Spirit to instruct others. Indeed, God calls some to be ministers of the Word and not others. Those whom He calls to ministry He equips with gifts of public speaking, instruction, and insight into the Scripture. Aquinas aptly observes that those gifted with teaching often are further granted insight and illumination into the Word for the edification, as it is with all other spiritual gifts, of the Church. The special emphasis Aquinas places on ministers of Scripture, however, is without Scriptural warrant

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas and the Illumination of the Intellect

2009-05-16T06:47:00.000-07:00

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes, “the intellect’s natural light is strengthened by the infusion of gratuitous light,” arguing that this infusion of light often results in actual images placed in the created intellect’s imagination. The bestowed images were what made up the beatific vision and were divinely formed so as to, “express divine things better than do those which we receive naturally from sensible things, as appears in prophetic visions.” He continues later in the work,

The divine substance is rightly called the light of glory; not indeed because it
makes the object actually intelligible, as the light of the agent intellect does, but
because it makes the intellect able to understand actually.

Thus, those special intellects that God chooses and gifts to the episcopacy receive the divine lumen by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures into the nature and essence of God. As the sole recipients of the revelation of God, the Church, through its clergy, is charged with instructing the laity as to the matters of the Christian faith. Aquinas argues that the goal of the Church is not necessarily to lead the laity to the comprehension of God but rather to elicit faith in the message it is teaching. In other words, the episcopacy seeks to create the conviction and assent that the message of the Church is true. The faith of the laity differs from the illumination and understanding of the clergy in that faith, for Aquinas, is not built on rational vision or knowledge but rather assent of the heart. Here, Aquinas’ dichotomy of the mind and heart appear strongest. Only the illuminated intellect may have knowledge of God, whereas those of a weakened and dark intellect may only have faith of the heart.

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas and the Hierarchy of Intellects

2009-05-15T06:47:00.000-07:00

Aquinas distinguishes three classes of men in regard to revelation: those who received revelation and passed on knowledge in written form (the prophets/apostles), those whose task it is to interpret and teach what has been given in revelation (the episcopacy), and the body of the laity who are simply charged to believe and have faith in what they are taught. As aforementioned, revelation occurs at the moment of cognition, which only comes through illumination of the intellect through the Holy Spirit.
Aquinas writes that, “It is necessary that some supernatural disposition should be added to the intellect in order that it may be raised up to such a great height.” The Divine Essence must be added to the human intellect by God and through His grace, for the essence of a higher nature cannot be understood by a lower nature except through the action of the higher nature. The natural power of man’s intellect, Aquinas argues, is insufficient for the Divine Substance. Therefore, if revelation is to be attained, an outside agent must intensify the created intellect’s ability and parameters concerning spiritual visions. As noted, any created intellect, however, by definition cannot possess enough power to serve as an outside agent. The only agent, then, awesome enough to envision and convey the Supreme Intellect is the Supreme Intellect. The Divine Essence thus becomes not only the object that is sought but also the medium by which the illumination of the intellect occurs. In this sense, the nature of God, as revealed to man on earth, is both understanding (the means by which He is understood) and the understood.

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas on Revelation and Scripture

2009-05-14T06:46:00.000-07:00

Aquinas notes a particular hierarchy in the manner in which Scripture comes to man. The Word came from God, being in essence God, to the prophets and apostles. Aquinas further notes that Christ illumined the hearts and minds of the apostles during His earthly ministry. Through this time, the more they came to perceive and grasp divine revelation the more their minds and hearts were wed into one. When Christ ascended into Heaven, it became the role of the Holy Spirit to ensure the acquisition of revelation and knowledge in the apostolic tradition. Bonino summarizes that God the Father authors the revelation of doctrine, Christ the Son transmits the doctrine, and the Spirit assures its interior assimilation. God is the primary cause of Scripture whereby man is the instrumental or secondary cause. Thus the Scriptures are rooted and inseparable from the work and mission of the apostolic foundation, which enjoys its continuation in the Roman Catholic Church.
While Aquinas affirms the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture, he relegates its perspicuity and illumination to the apostolic tradition. He argues that the Scriptures must never be separated from the traditions of the church fathers. As successors of the apostles, the episcopacy of the Church receives illumination to the meaning of Scripture. Nichols summarizes, “illumined by the Holy Spirit, the Fathers explained infallibly the meaning of the sacred text,” making the Church the “authentic transmitters of Scripture.” As noted, the revelation of God dwells in the apostolic tradition, and it has thus been given to the Pope as Peter’s successor, and subsequently delivered down through the hierarchy of the Church for communication to the laity. In this view, God bestows revelation and illumination only to the episcopacy, and this necessitates the elevation of Church tradition to equality with Scripture. Only the Church, as the sole recipient of God’s illumination of Scripture, can make the necessary adjustments and interpretations for instruction to the laity. Kaczor writes, “Revelation is intended to save singular, distinct persons living in diverse contexts, with various intellectual presuppositions. The expression of sacred doctrine must therefore change so that it can save people in contexts that differ from the context of the apostles.”

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas on the Intellect's Apprehension of God

2009-05-13T06:45:00.000-07:00

Perceiving God is quite different, however, than from perceiving daffodils. Not only are man’s sensory perceptions of God limited, but also his capacity to observe and understand that which created him is impossible. Because man cannot of his own accord or power understand God, God must make special revelation of Himself to him. This special revelation is a type of knowledge that transcends what human reason can ordinarily attain. Revelation, therefore, is given in a light infinitely higher than the natural light of reason, or in a “divinely-bestowed lumen.” In this way, God does not impart necessarily a new knowledge to man, but rather a new light that enables him to perceive and make conclusions about God.
Two essential elements compose this God-given revelation: the receiving of the content and the interpretation of that content. Aquinas would only qualify this imputation as revelation after the second component. “Revelation,” in his mind necessitates the intellect’s classification and interpretation of the subject matter in an intelligible way. For example, reading of the Incarnation in the Gospels is not revelation unless the reader understands the incarnational birth of Jesus to Mary as the Son of God in human flesh. Comprehension of what God intends to reveal forms the ultimate qualification for whether or not a person receives revelation.
Scripture thus plays a slightly different role in Aquinas’ theology than in the modern Protestant theology. Instruction in the written form is crucial since man’s natural capabilities are limited. The Word is a work of grace and must come from the outside of man. Revelation is a cognitive act dependant on communication. Persson writes, “the knowledge given to certain chosen individuals through this locutio interior is passed on to others through a locutio exterior…or oral teaching.” In other words, God imparts knowledge of Himself through words and concepts that signify the object He intends to communicate. Communication, for Aquinas, proves more valuable that the written teaching itself since comprehension comes through the illumination, not the written Word itself. Thus, Aquinas would not call Scripture the revelation of God, but rather would define revelation as the illumination of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit to man.

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas on the Intellect's Apprehension

2009-05-12T06:44:00.000-07:00

Aquinas’ doctrine begins with the mode of the intellect’s comprehension of things in general. He argues that any conclusion of the mind requires an absolute and complete understanding of the elements that make up the given studied subject/object. These conclusions are formed from a series of inferences made from the elements as they are perceived by the mind. The tool by which such elements and principles are grasped, Aquinas calls the intellect. In line with the Aristotelian school of thought to which Aquinas subscribed, human cognition derives primarily from sense perception, from which follows, human intellectual cognition. First, the intellect perceives intelligible forms through its own natural light or reason (e.g. that plant growing from the ground is yellow). All men are endowed with this “natural light” of the soul, which gives man the ability to perceive himself, that which is around him, and to make conclusions from that which he observes.
After perceiving the thing observed, man then forms an abstract idea of what is observed (e.g. because the plant is yellow and made up of numerous petals, it may be a daffodil). The intellect joins the various observations together and gauges them against reality and experience. From this process, the intellect makes a conclusion about the thing. The accuracy and essentialness of the conclusion depends on the power and perception of the intellect. Depending on its power, the intellect is assimilated to the essence of the object perceived based on all the ideas it has formed of that object. In other words, a particular intellect is capable of discerning the truth of a given thing observed insofar as it perceives all the full and correct elements of that thing. In this way, one may say that the basic human intellect is infallible in that incorrect conclusions derive from limited perception and observation, rather than from the intellect’s ability to draw conclusions. One begins to see here at the beginning of Aquinas’ discourse on the intellect and revelation the basic premise that not all intellects are equal, as some have greater abilities to attach and assimilate themselves to objects than others.

Modus Revelatio: Aquinas on Revelation and Illumination

2009-05-11T06:43:00.000-07:00

Though man knows of God’s existence through nature and conscience, man remains lost without God’s specific and special revelation of Himself through Scripture. Only through God’s specific and special revelation can man really know who God is, His Triune nature, and the salvation He offers to lost people. The task of deriving from Scripture alone a cohesive and consistent Biblical theology often proves to be a formidable task, however. Paul writes that man requires God-given aid in order to correctly interpret and understanding of the Bible , and that it is through work of the Holy Spirit that believers are enlightened to the truths of Scripture.
Although the doctrine of illumination appears quite straightforward to Protestant minds, historically the Church has not consistently affirmed the complete perspicuity of the revelation of God to all believers. Rather, a substantial segment of the Church has taught that illumination comes through a hierarchy of spiritual intellects whereby only a select few receive the direct divine self-revelation of God. In this view, those chosen few then are charged to teach and instruct believers on the truths of God, enabling those believers to have faith. Historically, numerous theologians have contributed to this view of illumination, yet Thomas Aquinas stands out as the major champion and author of the “illumination of the intellect.” Whereas Scripture emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all believers for the purposes of salvation and complete reconciliation of individuals to God, Aquinas limits that illumination to only a select few. These few illuminated believers receive real understanding and cognition of God, as the remaining mass of men, limited by their weak intellects, must rely solely on the teachings and instructions of the illumined for the truth of God. In his various writings, notably the Summa Theologica, Aquinas misappropriates the use and significance of the intellect in his doctrine of revelation.

The Showcase of God's Glory: conclusion

2009-05-07T06:02:00.000-07:00

The viability of the “best of all possible worlds” argument is creditable. The foundation of the argument is anchored upon the goodness of God. Without this fundamental and essential attribute, neither middle knowledge nor the “best of all possible worlds” arguments can be reconciled with Christian theism. God, in all things, must answer only to Himself. To impose human-constructed standards or measures to either His being or His creative acts renders one guilty of absurd anthropomorphism. As Erickson notes, because God is good He can be trusted and loved. And though the present state of affairs on planet Earth, both globally and personally, seem laden with evil and despair, man may trust and hope in God’s greater and holistic plan for His Kingdom from Creation to the Eschaton, which must by virtue of His own being meet His perfect standards and glory. Praise be to God!

The Showcase of God's Glory: Bibliography

2009-05-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

Adams, Marilyn McCord. “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God.” The Problem of Evil.
ed. Adams, Marilyn McCord & Robert Merrihew Adams (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990)

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Toronto: Random House, 1948.

Brunner, Emil. The Divine Imperative. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947.

Craig, William Lane. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and
Human Freedom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_______. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents From Aristotle to
Suarez. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Erickson, Millard J. God the Father Almighty. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

_______. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

Flint, Thomas P. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1998.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.

Hasker, William. God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1978.

Larmer, R. A. “Goodness and God's Will.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35,
no. 2 (1992)

Leibniz, G. W. Theodicy. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 1990.

Little, Bruce A. A Creation-Order Theodicy. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005.

Long, D. Stephen. The Goodness of God. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001.

Knudson, Albert C. The Doctrine of God. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1930.

Petterson, Alvyn. “A Good Being Would Envy None Life: Athanasius on the Goodness of God.”
Theology Today 55, no. 1 (April 1998).

Reichenbach, Bruce R. Evil and a Good God. New York: Fordham University Press, 1982.

Steinberg, Jesse R. “Leibniz, Creation, and the Best of All Possible Worlds.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62, no. 3 (2007).

Waltke, B. K. “Creation account in Genesis 1:1-3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 529 (Jan.-Mar.
1976).

The Showcase of God's Glory: Objections

2009-05-05T06:01:00.001-07:00

Because God is good, a notion not only illustrated in creation but predicated in His Word, it is evident that He must choose to create the best of all possible worlds. Furthermore, the goodness of God demonstrates that it is possible to argue for a best of all possible worlds. A common objection to the possibility of a best of all possible worlds argues that, because of the existence of various kinds of evil in the created world, no one standard of goodness can be established by which to grade possible worlds. Scripture shows, however, that the standard of goodness is God Himself. God, as Aquinas argued, is the perfection of being that all things desire. Because of His self-revelation, it is possible, therefore, to evaluate the goodness of all created beings.
Reichenbach offers two additional objections to a “best” of all possible worlds. First, he argues from a Thomist perspective that the best of all possible worlds would include the highest kinds of beings. Such a hierarchy of being runs infinitely towards God, who is the perfect being and cannot be equaled. Such a chain of being, he argues, is infinite and impossible. Yet the Bible makes a strong case for the supremacy of man in creation. Genesis 1:26-27 records that man is made in the very image of God, according to His “likeness,” and is “very good.”
Reichenbach makes a second objection, though, against the “best” of all possible worlds. He argues that the “best” world would be that which is most optimal, according to “the sum total of utility, benefit, or good in the world.” Whatever the standard for possible worlds may be, Reichenbach argues that there would always exist a world in which there was more of that standard (e.g. if the standard were yellow lilies, for any given world that had yellow lilies there could exist another world with just one more yellow lily, on to infinity). Reichenbach fails to consider that since the standard of possible worlds is the goodness of God, and His middle knowledge informs Him of the glory He would receive and accomplish in all possible worlds, it is possible for God to create the world where He receives the most possible glory.
Finally, Plantinga objects to the possibility of a “best” of all possible worlds arguing:
No matter how marvelous a world is—containing no matter how many persons
enjoying unalloyed bliss—isn’t it possible that there be a better world containing
even more persons enjoying even more unalloyed bliss?

Plantinga errs on the notion that man’s happiness, success, or bliss is the standard by which possible worlds are judged. Scripture, as well as Christian tradition, teach against the notion that man, his emotions, and/or his pleasures are the highest goal or priority of God. Rather, as has been demonstrated, God seeks His glory and creates man ultimately for that same purpose. To argue otherwise undermines the Biblical teachings on the nature of God.

The Showcase of God's Glory: Essential Goodness

2009-05-05T06:01:00.000-07:00

God is able to do good, however, because He is necessarily good. Just as without natural knowledge God is not God, so is His goodness necessary to His nature. Whatever God is, He is good. Erickson writes that there exists an objective, universal set of values that define moral good and evil. However, these values are not external to God, but rather inherent in His very being and constitution. He is the highest good by His very nature. As the first category of Biblical teaching on God’s goodness illustrates, even without His actions God, essentially is good.
Because He is necessarily and essentially good, God’s chief concern is His own glory. Whereas selfishness and self-worship are viewed as negative qualities in human beings, His love and worship of Himself is fundamental to God’s nature and His goodness. The divine egocentricity exemplifies how God may be both necessarily and nominally good. He must, because of His very nature, pursue His own glory as He has no higher standard than Himself. Furthermore, He must worship and love Himself above all things, for to do so is the highest commandment of His Word. To make anything else the supreme objective would be idolatry and betray His goodness.
From eternity past, God’s goodness has sought and been exemplified by His own glory. In the creative act, God chose His Kingdom to be the centerpiece and showcase of that glory. The Creation event, in and of itself, is a demonstration of God’s goodness to be comprehended. Because of His goodness, He must pursue His glory in all things, and this requirement necessitated that all aspects of the Kingdom He created must glorify Him supremely from creation onward. His eternal will, which seeks His own glory, is synonymous with His will for the Kingdom, as in this world the same pursuit of His eternal goodness and glory is to be accomplished. A lesser pursuit of His glory in this world would mean that God did not accomplish what He set out to do, which would undermine either His omniscience to plan such a world, His omnipotence to create such a world, and/or His goodness to choose such a world. If any one of these elements were true, then God would be not-God, and such a scenario is a logical impossibility.

The Showcase of God's Glory: Nominal Goodness

2009-05-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

The Biblical teachings on the goodness of God reveal two types of goodness embodied by God. The first category attests to His necessary goodness, in that whatever God is, is good. The second category details His nominal goodness, in that God is good because He does good. God eternally possesses both types of goodness for, because He is God, He necessarily has always been good, and because He is triune He is able to do good acts, even before there was Creation. As a result, both types of goodness equally and inseparably inform God in all that He does, notably, in this case, in Creation. Therefore, both types of goodness enable God to discern and actualize the best of all possible worlds.
To understand how God’s goodness informs Him to choose the best of all possible worlds to create, one begins with an analysis of His nominal goodness. Grudem defines the goodness of God as that which is worthy of approval. In this sense, every act merits His own approval. There is no higher standard of goodness to which God can ascribe. All that He does must meet the standard of His very nature and character. James 1:13 further adds that God does only good. Whatever action He takes must be good in value and holiness. Genesis 1:31 best epitomizes the nominal goodness of God, in that as He reflects on His creative actions, He is able to call it “very good.”

The Showcase of God's Glory: The Goodness of God pt. II

2009-05-03T05:59:00.000-07:00

The goodness found in the world points to, but is not identical with, the goodness of God. Yet, just as the apostle Paul demonstrates in the first chapter of the Epistle of Romans, the natural revelation of God’s goodness is insufficient for truly knowing its essence. As Aquinas’ treatise demonstrates, man may know by creation and reason that God is good. Yet exactly what that goodness entails and the qualities that accompany it remains lost. Apart from God’s specific revelation of Himself, as far as man knows, the complete being and goodness of God could entail the qualities of untruthfulness or cruelty. Such qualities, however, are far from what is meant when goodness is attributed to God. Therefore, because goodness is not a self-evident category, it must be discovered and discerned through God’s specific and special revelation of Himself by His Word, the Holy Scriptures.
Erickson organizes the Biblical teaching on the goodness of God into three categories: direct predications, descriptions of God doing good, and appeals to believers to be good because God is good. First, numerous passages provide direct predications that God is good. 1 Chronicles 16:34 and Psalm 106:1, among others, proclaim, “He is Good.” Throughout the Psalms, God is often characterized either by His goodness or for possessing goodness. Furthermore, Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, testifies to the goodness of the Triune God, remarking in the Gospel of Luke, “No one is good except God alone.”
Second, various passages throughout Scripture testify to the works of God as being good. In his farewell address, Joshua recounts the numerous good deeds of God. The Psalmist declares the good works of God for the upright and righteous. Jesus attests the good that God does for those who seek Him. Furthermore, James writes that, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above.”
Finally, the Bible makes specific commands and pleas to all men to do good on the basis of God’s goodness. David prays for the Spirit of God to show him how to do good and be good as God is. Jesus instructs that those who uphold God’s commandments and statutes will be honored and called great in the Kingdom. The apostle Paul teaches that man is redeemed in Christ for the purposes of doing the good works of God.

The Showcase of God's Glory: The Goodness of God

2009-05-02T05:58:00.000-07:00

Speaking of God’s goodness is a different matter than calling a man “good.” Man cannot simply apply his own set of morals to God and assume that he has comprehensively understood the divine goodness. However, since God is a God who communicates Himself to man by specific revelation, and He requires man to live up to certain qualities because He Himself is similarly bound, there must be a certain degree of commonality between the goodness of God and of man. The goodness of God, therefore, can only be articulated to man analogically to the good that man knows.
Philosophy offers one such natural venue through which man can seek to understand and define the goodness of God. Thomas Aquinas presents such a position in his massive Summa Theologica, outlining what “goodness” means in general as well as in God. He argues that the essence of goodness is that it is desirable in some way. A thing is only desirable, however, in so far as it is perfect. All men desire their own perfection, he continues, which requires in Aristotelian thought complete actuality or being. Being and goodness, therefore, are the same, distinguished only by the fact that goodness expresses the aspect of desirability.
Since being and goodness are the same, all things that possess being are good. However, since man lacks complete being and actuality, he lacks complete goodness and is evil by virtue of this privation. Goodness also implies the aspect of the end, since “desire” entails an end. Since goodness includes the end, it must be first, since what is first in causing is last in the thing caused (e.g. fire which heats all things before producing fire itself).
Goodness, therefore, belongs to God. All beings seek their perfection, which consists in their likeness to the agent that created them. Since God is First Cause, goodness and desirableness must belong to Him. God alone is essentially good since He alone is complete actuality, and His essence is His being. Creation may be called good in that it reflects the divine being and seeks its own perfection. God is the First and the End of Creation, demonstrating His own complete and perfect goodness.

The Showcase of God's Glory: The "Best"?

2009-05-01T05:57:00.000-07:00

A common question that follows, however, is what exactly does “best” mean in the context of possible worlds. Leibniz argued that the best of all possible worlds is one that permits a maximization of being. God weighs all the possibilities to estimate their degree of perfection or imperfection. The result of these infinite comparisons is the choice of the best world (e.g. this world). Leibniz justifies his position by arguing that God is bound by His nature to create His best. Steinberg points out that this argument hinges on the premise that God is bound by a principle of perfection to always do His best wherever He acts. God’s decision to do His best emanates from His nature, in that it is not logically possible for God to do any less than He is. It is not that this world is the best because it bears the most similarities or congruence with the divine perfection (a Thomist notion), but rather is the best because in its totality this world cannot be improved upon.
For Little, “best” pertains to that which has the highest possible moral order under the circumstance. In this sense “best” represents not a quantitative, but a qualitative notion. Similar to Leibniz’s premise of best as “that which cannot be improved upon,” Little argues that this world is the best because it contains the optimal relationship possible between good and evil. Hick also understands “best” to represent that which best serves the purpose that God is seeking to accomplish.
These proposed definitions of “best” stand on the premise that creation embodies an intrinsic goodness, which emanates from the Creator Himself. Therefore, in order to properly define “best” one must investigate what exactly the intrinsic goodness of Creation entails. Since that goodness flows directly from God, one must ascertain what the goodness of God really is. It is this goodness of God, which informed Him in Creation, which demonstrates that this is the best of all possible worlds.

The Showcase of God's Glory: Possible Worlds pt. II

2009-04-30T05:56:00.000-07:00

The “best of all possible worlds” argument, therefore, simply states that before He created, God, through His middle knowledge, surveyed all the possible complete worlds that involved free agents, made in the image of God, and He chose the best possible world because His nature required Him to do so. It may appear upon first glance that according to this argument, God is actually not omnipotent since He cannot do all things. However, as previously noted God cannot act against His nature. To act imperfectly would in a sense render Him not God. He cannot be both God and not-God, for to do so would violate the law of non-contradiction. One must clarify God’s omnipotence to say that God can do all things which are logically possible and in accord with His nature. God cannot violate the laws of logic, and He cannot be not-God.

It has been shown what a possible world is and how, through middle knowledge, God could conceive of every possible world and choose the best world from among them. Yet, what is to say He actually chose “the best”? How could one evaluate or determine what the “best” would be? What would make one world better than another? Furthermore, what must inform God and enable Him to choose the best world to create? Whereas the rationale thus far has posited that, through His omniscience and omnipotence, God is able to create any possible world of His choice, it is the Christian doctrine of His goodness that demonstrates that God did create the best of all possible worlds

The Showcase of God's Glory: Possible Worlds

2009-04-29T05:55:00.000-07:00

Middle knowledge thus forms the foundation of God’s capability in creating the best of all possible worlds. “World,” in the sense it is used here, and for the remainder of this paper, constitutes the complete possible history from creation onwards and encompasses the systematic whole of that particular created order. In choosing what world to create, God knows all the free choices of moral agents and the subsequent effects that would constitute each particular “world.” In each possible world, each person He creates in that world is free to choose from all the possibilities present in that world. Each “world” also includes the prayers of the free agents in that world and God’s providential answers to those prayers. By His middle knowledge, God can survey all the possibilities and select the best world for actualization. What informs Him to make that decision will be addressed subsequently.
What exactly constitutes a “possible world”? As aforementioned, a “world” encompasses all things from the planets and natural order of that created world to the decisions and actions of the created agents that dwell in it from the moment of creation. One must understand “possible worlds” to constitute only those worlds where beings would have the power and freedom of choice. A world with free agents limits the possibilities of worlds that God can create. Such a world with free agents, capable of doing good and evil, involves a multitude of possible scenarios and results. While God is free to chose from among those possible worlds, freely choosing to create a world with libertarian freedom limits His choices as well (e.g. God cannot create a world where man is free to choose on some occasions and not on others. This would render man not a truly free being.) Furthermore, God is bound by the laws of logic. He cannot create a world where ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ both exist at the same time (e.g. He cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.)

The Showcase of God's Glory: Middle knowledge pt. II

2009-04-28T05:54:00.000-07:00

Proponents of middle knowledge cite various Biblical accounts as evidence that God possesses middle knowledge. 1 Samuel 23, one such passage, recounts God’s warning to David that Saul would come to Keilah in order to kill him (v. 10-11). In verse 12, God further warns David that the men of Keilah would surrender David over to Saul when he arrived. David, therefore, flees Keilah and in turn is not captured by Saul. Neither God’s natural or free knowledge can account for His warning to David in this passage. Knowledge of Saul’s plans and Keilah’s reaction are not necessary truths to the nature of God, so they cannot be attributed to His natural knowledge. However, since Saul in fact never actually comes to Keilah (v. 13) and the men of Keilah never actually hand David over, there are no existing actual events that God’s free knowledge could contemplate. Rather, the events of 1 Samuel 23 demonstrate God’s knowledge of counterfactuals, which constitutes His middle knowledge.
Proponents also posit that middle knowledge plays a significant role in creation. Hasker notes that in creating a world involving libertarian freedom, some risks are inevitable. Free agents may choose to do good, but they may also choose to do evil. In fact, there remains the risk of all agents doing tremendous evil. In the face of such risks, an omnibenevolent God would perhaps not create at all, rather than chancing such calamity. Further, since natural knowledge only informs God of those truths which emanate from His nature, and free knowledge only informs God of that which is created and actualized, before the moment He spoke creation into being God would only know the possibilities; and thus, the events which transpired would come sequentially to Him as a surprise. Without middle knowledge the creation event seems to undermine both God’s wisdom and foreknowledge.
Middle knowledge informs God before the Creative Act of the free actions of all possible agents in all possible situations. God foresees all their free choices, and thus has the ability to know what circumstances to create to achieve the best possible ends. God desires to create agents which will desire good and love Him, but allows them to respond freely to Himself. Middle knowledge does not allow God to determine which actions men will take, but simply to know what those free actions would be in any given set of circumstances. Craig summarizes, “by means of His middle knowledge, God is able to construct a possible world which is within His power to actualize and which is consonant with His will.”

The Showcase of God's Glory: Middle Knowledge

2009-04-27T05:53:00.000-07:00

Theologians and philosophers dispute the legitimacy of the proposed second type of God’s knowledge, middle knowledge. Middle knowledge first presupposes the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Second, even for those who ascribe to compatibilism, it remains rather difficult to prove or demonstrate God’s knowledge of that which does not actually exist. For the limited scope of this paper, however, it will be assumed that middle knowledge does exist in the divine being. Hasker succinctly summarizes the classical theory of middle knowledge, writing:

For each possible free creature that might exist, and for each possible situation in
which such a creature might make a free choice, there is a truth, known to God
prior to and independent of any decision on God’s part, concerning what definite
choice that creature would freely make if placed in that situation.

In God’s free knowledge, He knows what the agent actually does, whereas in situations that never arise, and where there is no particular action for God to know, His middle knowledge informs Him as to what would have transpired. God knows what every possible creature would do, not just could do. It is vital to note as well that middle knowledge is neither deterministic nor probabilistic as it is not that God determines what agents will decide to do or that He knows what agents most probably will do. Rather, God’s middle knowledge informs Him of how all possible free beings will freely act in all possible circumstances. The only way God can prevent the decision of free beings in a given circumstance is to abstain from creating either the agent and/or the particular circumstance.

Middle knowledge shares features, and yet distinctions, with both natural and free knowledge. God’s middle knowledge is like His natural in that it precedes the free acts of His will, yet bears likeness to free knowledge in that what He knows does not emanate directly from His nature. Akin to free knowledge, while by His nature God has middle knowledge, the content of that knowledge is contingent upon creatures. God’s middle knowledge includes not only this knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, but also any “contingent, prevolitional truth.” God not only knows what creatures will do in any given situation, but also knows as well how He, Himself, will respond in any given situation. Middle knowledge thus informs God what world would result from any creative activity He might perform.

The Showcase of God's Glory: Natural and Free Knowledge

2009-04-26T05:52:00.000-07:00

A simple synopsis of this argument begins with the knowledge of God (two elements of which most theists hold; the third remaining disputed). Three moments occur in God’s knowing of a thing. These three moments coincide, and are synonymous, with the three types of God’s knowledge: natural, free, and middle. The relationship between these three types, or moments, of God’s knowledge is not temporal, but rather is a “relation of conditionship.” In other words, God only has certain types of knowledge on the basis of having other types as well.
The first type, or moment, of knowledge is God’s natural knowledge, or God’s knowledge of all necessary truths. Such truths include the laws of logic and are true by virtue of the nature of God Himself. These truths, which comprise His natural knowledge, do not depend on His will to be enacted, but rather simply exist. This type of knowledge is fundamental to His being as deity. In regards to Creation, God’s natural knowledge includes all possible individuals and circumstances He could create.
The third type is God’s free knowledge. This type includes God’s knowledge of the actual world He created. By this knowledge, He determines truth and falsehood, since if He had created a different world or set of circumstances there would have been an alternate and corresponding standard of true and false. This knowledge includes His foreknowledge of everything that will occur. Craig summarizes God’s free knowledge, arguing that God must have this kind of knowledge to still be God, but the content of this knowledge could vary based upon which world God initially created.

The Showcase of God's Glory: an introduction cont.

2009-04-25T05:52:00.000-07:00

Gottfried Leibniz introduced, in large part, the notion of this world being the best of all possible worlds in his 18th century work, Theodicy. While specifically a response to the problem of evil, the “best of all possible worlds” argument remains one that extends beyond any one genre of philosophy or theology. Rather, it employs various inter-disciplinary arguments and deductions to provide a comprehensive picture of the nature and character of God played out in the Creation Act. Since the publishing of Theodicy in 1710, Leibniz’s proposition has undergone numerous and extensive critiques, attracting as many opponents and critics as proponents and new authors.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an entire description of the debate concerning the “best of all possible worlds” argument. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the goodness of God forms the crux of the “best of all possible worlds” argument. Depending on one’s philosophical assumptions and theological beliefs, the debate of possible worlds may be a moot point. However, the “best of all possible worlds” argument, whether or not one finds it viable, is dependant on the Christian theistic doctrine of the goodness of God. Contrary to the arguments of Knudson, Reichenbach, and Plantinga, the goodness of God, which informed Him in the actualizing of Creation, allows the Christian theist to argue that God created the best of all possible worlds.

The Showcase of God's Glory: an introduction

2009-04-24T05:42:00.000-07:00

A significant portion of my studies for the past few months has been over the issue of the problem of evil to theistic belief. The argument generally runs that if God, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, really did exist He would prevent evil. Numerous defenses (theodicies) have been proposed some arguing that God accomplishes a greater-good and is therefore justified in allowing evil to exist, others suggesting that evil is a natural consequence of the Fall and that God now works to providentially overcome it.
The issue has really led me to think about the attributes, or characteristics of God, the world in which we live, and God interaction with this Created order and His plan for it. Then I stumbled upon a work entitled Theodicy by Gottfried Leibniz. This response to the problem of evil argues that the world in which we live is the best world that God could have created given the parameters. Because this is the best we must realize that while evil exists, it is the result of sin and is at the most reduced it could be given God's larger plan for His Kingdom. No matter where one may dwell on an answer to the argument from evil, the idea of this world as God's best got me asking a lot more question. In response then I began reading, researching, and constructing an argument, which confessingly I still do not entire subscribe to myself. However, I find that the questions and tenets of the discussion most valuable in theology, regardless of one's philosophical inclinations. For the next number of days I want to trace this argument and its tenets and hopefully allow both of us to sort through this issue and develop, if nothing else, a deeper understanding and affection for God. Cheers!

Unity in the Meal: Biblical Theology in Practice

2009-04-22T04:06:00.000-07:00

Paul does not place the responsibility on pastors to ascertain whose heart is in the proper place to partake of the Supper. It becomes the role and responsibility of ministers to articulate these teachings and call congregations to periods of self-examination and repentance. In churches today, there may be no instruction on the importance of taking the Supper with the right spirit, in which case believers unknowingly bring judgment on themselves. Further, there may also be persons in the midst of congregations who think they are saved when in fact they are not. If pastors routinely pause prior to the administration of the Supper to call the assembly to self-assessment and explain Scriptural warnings against taking the Eucharist improperly, then churches may feel more assured of the purity of the Lord’s Table, not just concerning non-believers but also from Christians who harbor resentment against one another or live in sin.
As much as a believer has the right to celebrate the Eucharist where it is administered, so too does God have a right for His children to be there. Christ commands the Church to take the Supper in remembrance of His sacrifice and gift. To refrain is to reject that gift. The Lord’s Supper clearly possesses significant communal benefits as it binds people from all walks of life and circumstance together in Jesus Christ. While churches may fear tainting the Table by allowing improper participants, one sees from Paul’s writings to the Corinthians that the Table serves as a context for self-examination. Rather than, as pastors, simply close the Supper to any stranger, the sacrament should be taught and explained. If Southern Baptists are as committed to teaching the Lord’s Supper as they are to protecting it, then they will find that congregations and believers will observe the Supper with a reverence and humility called for by Paul. Rather than setting up barriers around the Table, pastors should humbly invite the Spirit to convict and work throughout the Church, trusting that those who are improper participants will sense the Lord’s prevention and seek out the church for aid in repentance and believer’s baptism.

Unity in the Meal: Bibliography

2009-04-22T03:11:00.000-07:00

Blount, Douglas K. and Joseph D. Wooddell. Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Critical Issues in
America’s Largest Protestant Denomination. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. XXI. Translated by John T. McNeill.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1960.

Cross, Anthony R. and Philip E. Thompson. Baptist Sacramentalism. Georgia: Paternoster, 2003.

Farwell, James. “Baptism, Eucharist, and the Hospitality of Jesus: On the Practice of ‘Open
Communion.’” Anglican Theological Review 86, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 215-238.

Gerstner, John H. The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Powhatan, Virginia:
Berea Publications, 1993.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. England:
InterVarsity Press, 1994.

The House of Bishops. Anglican Church.
The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity: an occasional paper of the House of Bishops of the Church of England. London, England: Church House Publishing, 2001.

Jüngel, Eberhard. “Church Unity is Already Happening: The Path Towards Eucharistic
Community.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 44, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 30-37.

Kasper, Walter Cardinal. Sacrament of Unity: The Eucharist and the Church. New York: The
Crossroads Publishing Company, 2004.

Phillips, L. “Open Tables and Closed Minds.” Liturgy 20, no. 4 (2005): 27-35.

Tanner, Kathryn. “In Praise of Open Communion: A Rejoinder to James Farwell.” Anglican
Theological Review 86, no. 3 (Summer 2004): 473-485.

Thorogood, Bernard. “Coming to the Lord's Table: A Reformed Viewpoint.” Ecumenical Review
44, no. 1 (Jan 1992): 10-17.

Trinidad, Tom. “Intercommunion.” Liturgy 20, no. 4 (2005): 37-45.

Zizioulas, John D. Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist
and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries. Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 200

Unity in the Meal: Biblical Theology in Practice

2009-04-21T03:05:00.000-07:00

The final question becomes how the Southern Baptist churches and her pastors may apply this model to their practice of the Lord’s Supper. On the basis of the foregoing, the Table belongs to all Christians and should thus be open to each one. However, to freely offer communion to all attendees on Sunday morning would naturally result in the admission of unqualified participants. There must be some sort of means by which pastors can protect the Table while not barring rightful participants to it.
In the second half of 1 Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul provides the framework for a solution to such a quandary. In verses twenty-seven through thirty-two he exhibits a concern that believers within the church at Corinth are partaking in the Lord’s Supper unworthily. Paul writes, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself,” (1 Cor. 11:29). Sampley explains that “discerning” is a figuring out or reckoning that a person is capable of doing. The “body” which Paul refers to is the body of Christ, or in other words, how one is related to Christ. In Paul’s thought, “body of Christ” can never be separated as a concept from those who by God’s grace have come to salvation. Sampley writes, “‘discerning the Body’ is Paul’s shorthand way of talking about an individual’s assessment of two distinguishable but inseparable matters: how well one’s life relates to Christ, and how well one’s love ties one to others who, though many, are one body in Christ,” (Sampley, 936). Improper self-assessment leads to both present and future divine judgment, as proper self-examination avoids judgment and ensures blessing. Sampley concludes that in addition to its many functions, the Lord’s Supper is the pre-eminent context for self-examination (Sampley, 937).

Unity in the Meal: Inter-Communion in the Practice of Jonathan Edwards

2009-04-20T04:04:00.000-07:00

Edwards’ ministry illustrates how a pastor can ensure the purity of the Lord’s Table, even in a system or church that is flawed in its theology and practice. For Edwards it was not of importance how a person came to faith or how they were baptized. Rather, that a person could both articulate and demonstrate in his or her life their salvation stood as the most important factor. His writings demonstrate his conviction that in eternity a person’s choice of salvation mattered most, not the means. From the evidence one can suppose that Edwards would champion opening the Lord’s Table to all believers, given their regeneration by the Holy Spirit because of the works of Jesus Christ. Gerstner summarizes Edwards’ convictions, “Everything he said from the earliest record of his preaching, through the controversy on Qualifications, to the end of his ministry, seems to assume that no one may presume to take the Lord’s Supper unless he is a professed believer in the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Gerstner, 449).
Edwards is emphatic in emphasizing all believers’ right and duty to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. He believed that a person must know he has the qualifications for the Supper in order to conscientiously attend it (Gerstner, 344). The question about admittance extends beyond whether or not a person has the right to partake to include whether or not God has the right to a person’s participation in it as well. Quoting Edwards,

Supposing it were merely a privilege which I am allowed but not commanded,
in a certain specific case, then, supposing I am uncertain whether that be the case
with me or no, it will be safest to abstain. But supposing I am not only forbidden
to take it, unless that be the case with me, but positively commanded and required
to take it, if that be the case in face, then it is equally dangerous to neglect on
uncertainties, as to take on uncertainties.

Communion is a command of Jesus Christ, in which regenerate believers are obligated in obedience to Him to partake. To deny someone that right, Edwards argues, is to commit the sin of preventing a believer to act in obedience. The Supper is a feast that unites believers to Christ and each other, thereby making it of the utmost importance that all believers partake in it. He believed that the visible church was only called a church because it was the only assembly of God visible to the world. He wrote, “on the basis of so professing visibly and audibly before the world the church regards such persons as proper participants in the Lord’s Supper,” (Gerstner, 451).

Unity in the Meal: Inter-Communion in the Practice of Jonathan Edwards

2009-04-18T04:02:00.000-07:00

Practicing the Supper, however, beyond denominational lines serves to be more difficult than simple academic inquiry. Should Southern Baptists simply admit anyone who claims church membership to the Lord’s Table? Jonathan Edwards, noted theologian and minister of the Christian faith, served within a denomination that permitted people, whom Edwards believed unfit, to communion. His writings and practices provide a useful model for ministry to Southern Baptists who may often feel themselves to be in similar situations.
The Reformed Puritan Church of Edwards’ day openly permitted select unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table. Children and grandchildren of church members were invited to partake of the Supper and welcomed into church membership without any sign or testimony of conversion. Edwards, unable to find any Biblical warrant to support the church’s position, opposed the permission of such unregenerate persons to the Lord’s Table. He taught that the covenant of redemption existed between God and Jesus with man as the benefactor. Christ then establishes in the Gospels a new covenant of grace with man, observed in the Lord’s Supper (Gerstner, 110). He did not allow children, even if baptized in infancy, to partake in the Eucharist, believing children unable to discern the body of Christ as Paul insisted of believers. Edwards believed that the Lord’s Supper was for only regenerate Christians. Admission to the Lord’s table came when a person was mature enough to demonstrate saving faith. Participants, in his mind, have to be able to understand its meaning and the gift of Jesus Christ (Gerstner, 120). The logic followed that any person who understood Christ’s gift of grace and the celebration of the Eucharist would either commit him or herself to faith and become a regenerate Christian or would reject it and secure his damnation. Either way, unbelievers either were not of the cognitive age to commit to Christ, thereby not qualifying for communion according to Paul’s standards, or had rejected Christ, obviously disqualifying themselves for communion at Christ’s Table.
Edwards taught that salvation never occurred apart from regeneration. The Church must assume a person unregenerate unless proven otherwise, especially concerning children, whom Edwards viewed as “the best field for evangelism,” (Gerstner, 121). Those baptized in infancy that never made a profession of faith as an adult were considered in a state of infancy and thus barred from the Lord’s Supper until they made a profession of faith. Despite his church’s policy on admittance to the Lord’s Supper, Edwards denied all unregenerate persons to partake of the Eucharist. Gerstner writes that, “because Edwards required a confession of saving faith found credible to the church, Hodge charged him with Anabaptistic “pure church” thinking,” (Gerstner, 137).

Unity in the Meal: Inter-Communion in the Wider Baptist Picture

2009-04-17T04:00:00.000-07:00

The solution to reconciling these differing views on the nature of the relationship between the Lord’s Supper and Church is three-fold. First, one needs to look outside of Hammett’s view to the wider Baptist context. There one finds a more accurate picture of the invisible Church and the local congregation’s role within it. Second, one should look back into history at the writings and ministry of America’s most influential theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Once one places his ministry and practices into the context of his denomination’s view on the Eucharist, a Biblical model for admission to the Table emerges. Finally, and foremost, as people of the Word, Southern Baptist must find justification and instruction within the Bible itself. Incorporating the requirements and instructions set forth by the apostle Paul, the church finds the foundation and method for the healthy administration and practice of the Lord’s Supper.
The traditional Baptist definition of the invisible church comes from Second London Confession in 1677 which defines the church as “the body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space consisting of all persons everywhere who have been placed in union with Jesus Christ through the ministry of the Holy Spirit,” (Cross, 24). According to a recent collaboration of Baptist scholars entitled Baptist Sacramentalism, the New Testament pictures the church as a heavenly and eschatological reality, not an earthly institution to be governed and grasped by men. The universal church is an entity, “we believe…exists; that we ourselves by God’s grace have been placed within it, along with all others who ‘bow their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ’ and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it,” (Cross, 25). Similar to the rhetoric employed within the Reformed and Anglican tradition, these authors argue the Eucharist is a foretaste of the Heavenly banquet pictured in Revelation 19. The continuity between the earthly practice of the Lord’s Supper and the eschatological Feast of the Lamb is of crucial importance to the church’s understanding of the Eucharist (Cross, 26).
Beyond the unity created by corporate observation of the Supper, a believer’s participation signifies an expression and declaration of personal faith and identity (Cross, 80). Partaking in the meal links believers to the story of salvation, placing them directly in the context and setting of Christ’s last meal with the disciples. This community extends beyond denominational lines and unifies the Christian with more than the person standing next to him or even Christians across the world. Observance of the Lord’s Supper ties the Christian to the multitudes before him who have celebrated the Eucharist over the course of two millennia (Cross, 85).

The church may be viewed as a particular people imbued with a particular
‘constitutive narrative’ that spans the ages from the primordial past to the
eschatological future…the biblical narrative provides the interpretive framework
—the narrative plot—through which the members of Christ’s community find
meaning in their personal and communal stories, as through their connection with
this people, believers discover the link between their personal lives and a
transcendent story—the narrative of the work of the biblical God in history (Cross, 88).

In this context one sees the Church as timeless and cross-generational. The Church serves to transmit the Gospel generation to generation passing its traditions and message of salvation to its children. It becomes a community of memory and hope, linking the present with the past (Cross, 91). Ordinances, or sacraments among many non-Baptists, can thus be seen as rituals that interject the present into the faith narrative of the Bible. They portray the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and transport the believing participant into the story. By placing the contemporary, local church into both the eschatological future and the historical past, the Lord’s Supper demonstrates its place within the context of the universal church.

Unity in the Meal: The Baptist Debate over Inter-Communion

2009-04-15T03:59:00.000-07:00

However, not all believers agree with the implications of the statements and the intercommunion of Protestants. Within the Southern Baptist community, Hammett champions closed communion, restricting the practice within local congregations. Furthermore, he believes that only properly baptized believers should be admitted to the Table (i.e. adult baptism by submersion). His argument begins like those of the proponents of intercommunion.
The Lord’s Supper renews the body of Christ spiritually and is an occasion for the renewing of one’s commitment to Christ (Hammett, 77). The Baptist Faith & Message views proper baptism as a “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” On this foundation Hammett’s argument is four-fold. First, baptism preceded the Supper and there is only one proper method of Baptism. Second, the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for the Church. He writes, “if the Lord’s Supper is for the church, and the church is composed of properly baptized believers, then the Lord’s Supper is for properly baptized believers,” (Hammett, 78). Third, one who is not baptized and thus not a member of the local body celebrating the Lord’s Supper cannot realistically renew unity with or commitment to that body. Finally, open communion is denigrating to Christ’s command to be baptized (Hammett, 79). Concluding, he writes, “the design and purpose of the Lord’s Supper cannot be fully experienced apart from a commitment to those with whom one shares the Supper.”
After examining both Hammett’s arguments for closed communion as well as the case made for intercommunion, one finds that the central issue at the heart of the debate, again, is “who constitutes the Church?” Trinidad and Philips, drawing from tradition and Scriptural interpretation, believe that the Lord’s Supper is intended for the universal Church as a means of the communio of all Christians in anticipation of the Heavenly feast of the Lamb. Hammett agrees that the Supper possesses divine unifying powers, however, he believes those powers are intended for the local congregation. While Hammett’s theology certainly does not exclude the doctrine of the universal Church, his writings certainly place a significantly greater emphasis on the workings of the local church. Are Southern Baptists to subscribe to Hammett’s traditional view of the local church and closed communion? Or rather are they to “jump ship,” unite with other denominations, and welcome all comers who claim salvation in Christ to the Lord’s Table on Sunday mornings?

Unity in the Meal: The Church and Communion

2009-04-15T03:58:00.000-07:00

In addition to its unifying power, proponents of intercommunion conceive the Eucharist as a foretaste of the Heavenly banquet pictured in Revelation 19. The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church write, “The Anglican practice of extending an invitation to share in Eucharistic fellowship to baptized communicants of other Christian churches can be seen as a proper pastoral anticipation of the eschatological summons to the marriage supper of the Lamb and as a foretaste of full visible unity,” (House of Bishops, 7). The House further iterates that the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist both possess a proleptic nature in that both point to an ultimate fulfillment. The Supper looks forwards to a “more wonderful fellowship meal” in God’s presence in the future. There, man’s original fellowship with God, which he held in Eden, will be restored (Grudem, 986).Thorogood argues that all the actions of the church on earth are done as interim actions, anticipating the fullness and fulfillment in heaven. Furthermore, the practice of intercommunion is “a means which prefigures the end, just as the elements themselves prefigure the bridal feast of the Lamb. Such means are creative, they help us to move towards the conclusion of God's purpose to unite all things under the Lordship of Christ,” (Thorogood, 12).

Unity in the Meal: The Church and Communion

2009-04-14T03:57:00.000-07:00

The presupposition of one Baptism calls into question, “who exactly is the Church?” Though for the sake of this current work one cannot dive entirely into the theology of the local and universal church, one may summarize with a few brief arguments from some select modern theologians. Thorogood states that it is crucial that pastors today recognize that the particular church is not the whole church of God. To be exclusive at the Lord’s Table would be to assume for oneself or denomination a wholeness of faith, practice, tradition, and prayer (Thorogood, 11). He, and many other like-minded theologians, argues that which binds followers of Christ together is a common commitment to the One whose table it is. Trinidad summarizes, “What we hold in common is greater and more central than what we do not,” (Trinidad, 40).
The Lord’s Supper has an outward focus to serve and love others both in the church and outside of it. God’s saving action in Christ requires believers to respond in gratitude. What is freely received in worship is to be distributed freely to all Christians. God’s sacrificial love comes through the body of Christ to all creation. Therefore, right worship before God leads to right service before others (Trinidad, 41). Baptism and the commitment/submission to the Lordship and sovereignty of Jesus Christ unite all believers into one holy, universal Church, which extends beyond time and space. Philips concludes, “through Holy Communion, we are married; we join our bodies to Christ’s body; we are part of the family,” (Philips, 33).

Unity in the Meal: Inter-Communion

2009-04-13T03:55:00.000-07:00

The debate does not end here, however. Within today’s Christian community questions also arise concerning how the Supper should be celebrated between different Protestant denominations. While some strongly advocate open intercommunion between all regenerate believers regardless of denominational affiliation, such as Thorogood and Jungel, others believe that communion should be restricted to specific local congregations, a view which John Hammett champions. Both camps present strong, well thought-out and defended cases for their view, citing both Scriptural evidence and practical implications. To ascertain a potential best practice one must again closely examine both cases through the filter of Scripture.
Zizioulas writes that the Eucharist cannot be studied as a closed object, apart from the content of the Church (Zizioulas, 17). In the New Testament, ekklesia is not a term given for just any congregation but for Eucharistic assemblies (Zizioulas, 46). In other words, Paul held the Church to be more than just a geographical or theoretical concept; the Church was the body of Christ which partakes in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Scripture presents the communion of believers with each other as a major feature of the Supper. There is a real, though imperfect, bond between all who have been brought into God’s family through baptism (House of Bishops, 6). Christ’s prayer in the Gospel of John demonstrates His desire for unity in the Church further witnessed in the Book of Acts. “The unity of the Church is seen, first and foremost, as a unity in the person of Christ, as incorporation into Him and His increase or building-up,” (Zizioulas, 16). Zizioulas further argues that the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the awareness that the “many” are united by the One who offered Himself on their behalf is a concept dating back to the very beginnings of Christianity itself, continuing that the metaphors for the Church (i.e. flock, body, building) are meaningless in one’s understanding of the Church outside of the “many” being united into “one” (Zizioulas, 54).
The argument follows that as the ordinance and sign of unity, the Eucharist presupposes that those who take part are united in the common faith and one Baptism (Kasper, 109). From a Catholic perspective this fellowship and unity with Christ in the Eucharist has always been seen in the larger context of the fellowship, or “communio,” of the church. Kasper argues that:

Paul writes that the sharing in the one chalice and the one bread gives us a share
in the death and resurrection of Christ and binds us to one another so that we form
the one body of the Lord, which is the church. The Eucharist does not institute
this fellowship, since it presupposes the fellowship which has already been bestowed
by Baptism; rather, the Eucharist actualizes, renews, and deepens it (Kasper, 136).

Unity in the Meal: The Bible's Stance on Open Communion

2009-04-12T03:54:00.000-07:00

While one could continue in this circular debate citing various traditions and theologians, the surest answer lies within the Bible itself. Rather than subscribe to centuries of thought and ecclesial policy, believers are beckoned to seek the Eternal by His living Word. Mark 14:22-25 illustrates that by Christ’s blood a new covenant is established between God and Man which can only be entered into by the life-altering choice and commitment to the sovereignty and authority of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. To celebrate this covenant, one would seem to have to abide in it, which Christ teaches occurs through conversion and baptism.
Grudem affirms this statement writing that the Lord’s Supper is solely for Christians. A person’s participation in the Supper symbolizes that they have made the commitment to be a part of the body of Christ (Grudem, 996). Diving into Paul’s first epistle to the church at Corinth one finds that when the Corinthians tell the story of Christ as it is told in the Supper it becomes their story as well. According to Paul they proclaim their life and identity in Christ in the Supper, affirming that Christ’s body is for believers and the Church (Sampley, 935-6). The body assembled is unified in fellowship for the Supper as the Eucharist acts as a lens through which the most important things about one’s new life in Christ are brought into focus. The meal is greatly sacred to the apostle. Whereas earlier in 1 Corinthians Paul makes concessions about eating meat and dining in unbelievers’ homes, he strictly forbids Christians to partake in pagan cultic ceremonies that in any way resemble that which is done and observed at the Table (1 Cor. 10:15-17).
Although certain modern theologians and pastors may see inconclusive evidence for open or closed communion, Paul had no doubt or question. How could someone who had never tasted the goodness and grace of Jesus Christ celebrate the Supper? How could a person who had come face to face with the utter reality of human depravation and atonement completed by the willingly and loving sacrifice of Jesus and not accepted that same Jesus as Saviour possibly begin to understand the sacredness of the Lord’s Table? While the gift of grace is an offer made to all mankind, the Lord’s Supper clearly is a blessing for only those who have entered into God’s family. To argue anything else is to deny the Biblical doctrine of justification solely by faith and the soteriological teachings of God’s Holy Word.

Unity in the Meal: The Case Against Open Communion in the Methodist Tradition

2009-04-11T03:52:00.000-07:00

Philips makes a strong rebuttal within the Methodist tradition as well against open communion. He argues concerning “converting ordinance” that Wesley’s practice and writings demonstrate that the table must be disciplined to whom is allowed to participate. Wesley did not believe that Christians must be certain of their justification, rather that they be repentant and seeking of forgiveness. In other words, to receive the sacrament a person must be cognizant of their depravity (Philips, 30). To be self-aware requires potential participants commit themselves to genuine self-assessment and repentance. Holy Communion requires participation in the body of Christ, which includes baptism. Philips also disregards the notion that by allowing non-believers to take the Supper they become more likely to come to faith (Philips, 32). He concludes with this analogy:

Eucharist before baptism is like premarital sex. Does postponing sexual intercourse
make couples more anxious to marry? Probably! Is that the reason the church gives
for postponing? No. The reason is that sexual intercourse is sacramentally unitive.
It makes of the two one flesh, and regular intercourse in the context of a shared life
continues to enact this union. Therefore, sexual intercourse presupposes sacramental
union of the man and woman, which is what marriage does (Philips, 32).

Unity in the Meal: The Case Against Open Communion in the Anglican and Reformed Tradition

2009-04-10T03:51:00.000-07:00

Such beliefs and practices are hardly unanimous within these denominations, however. James Farwell, an Anglican theologian and professor at the General Theological Seminary, is an opponent of fully open communion within the Anglican community. Farwell argues that the Eucharist is a gift to the church, not a means of grace. The Scriptures demonstrate that there are specific requirements to take the Supper as illustrated by Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians for not discerning the Body assumes that the Lord’s Supper had a specific character they were to understand and respect. Farwell summarizes, “One should not participate in the meal, then, if one does not embody a commitment to that welcome that marks the coming rule of God” (Farwell, 222). In response to Tanner’s hospitality argument, Farwell writes that offering communion to unbaptized believers is actually inhospitable as it causes confusion about the very nature of the gift that the church has to offer to the world (Farwell, 217). He continues,

Churches who welcome to communion those who receive it out of mere curiosity,
or an unreflective longing for transcendence, or an attraction to the Christ-image
as a primal symbol of generic ‘spirituality,’ or a politeness to friends at a wedding,
undertake a practice that is incoherent with respect to the faith enacted within it
(Farwell, 227).

Many within the Reformed tradition also oppose fully open communion. John Calvin wrote that the Eucharist is a response to God’s grace, not a precursor (Calvin, 4.17.7). The Supper is a gift from God and therefore is to be distributed in the public assembly of the church in order to instruct the regenerate of the communion by which all Christians “cleave together” in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Eucharist serves to transmit to believers the gifts and blessings of salvation (Calvin, 4.17.12). To recognize this blessing as it is revealed in the Lord’s Supper transforms the Eucharist from not only a ritual of remembrance but also a celebration feast. Jungel writes that “Eucharistic gladness” is essential to preparation and participation in communion (Jungel, 31). This rejoicing is both individual and corporal as the entire body of Christ joins together to celebrate their transformed lives. Non-believers can hardly be expected to be capable of such celebration. If the Eucharist is response to God’s grace, then only those who have received it can participate in it.

Unity in the Meal: The Case for Open Communion in the Methodist Tradition

2009-04-09T03:48:00.000-07:00

The case for fully open communion possibly finds its greatest prevalence in the Methodist tradition. The argument is four-fold, marked by tradition, empirical evidence, and a dearth of Scriptural warrant. First, John Wesley, founder of the Methodist tradition, believed the Eucharist to be a “converting ordinance” (Philips, 29). The experience of conversion is not a prerequisite for communion, as Wesley did not believe every “Christian” to actually be saved. Rather, he believed that the Eucharist was an occasion for repentance and the reception of grace. This belief leads to the second point in the argument, that being that Wesley’s long-time practice was to welcome all comers to communion. Since Wesley in his ministry felt no conviction to bar any person from the table, the modern church should follow suit. Third, the Methodist church has frequently admitted unbaptized infants and children to the Lord’s Supper throughout their history. How can the church admit certain non-believers and prevent others? If children were prevented from participating, however, Methodists fear that they would become less likely to participate in further church rituals, such as baptism (Philips, 31). Finally, similar to Tanner’s argument, Methodist proponents of fully open communion argue that Christ’s ministry was marked by meal fellowship with sinners. To exclude anyone from the Lord’s Supper would be “inhospitable” and would endanger that person ever coming to faith (Philips, 32).

Unity in the Meal: The Case for Open Communion in Anglican and Reformed Theology

2009-04-08T03:46:00.000-07:00

The foundations of the debate within Protestantism begin with how “open” the Table should be. Various denominations today debate among themselves over whether or not non-believers should be invited to and accepted for the Lord’s Supper. In order to answer how denominations should interact between each other, one must first answer this pressing issue, otherwise churches must begin allowing Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists to feast at the Table alongside the body of Christ. Within the Anglican community, Kathryn Tanner has championed fully open communion. Her argument begins with examining Christ’s ministry on earth. Against which few would argue, Tanner writes that Christ’s ministry was to sinners in all aspects of life. She claims that Jesus established a long tradition of meal fellowship, dining with sinners and inviting all to eat with Him (Tanner, 476). Jesus shared the Last Supper with Judas, the man whom He knew would betray Him, as well as Peter, whom He knew would deny Him. Against the notion that those participating in the Eucharist should be aware of its gravity and meaning, Tanner proposes that the disciples were unaware of the profundity of the supper and thus were not proper participants as the modern Anglican Church would require.
The Supper, Tanner believes, is intended to show the inclusive character of the banqueting of the kingdom. To restrict the Eucharist to the baptized believer does not fall in line with tradition and history (Tanner, 480). Rather she cites a certain history of the Church to show that the Supper is a means of preparatory grace. Salvation is about Christ’s gift to the sinner; therefore, one needs to receive that gift before he can commit to it. In other words communion actually precedes baptism and a person’s commitment to faith. The Eucharist acts as an event that helps the non-believer come to faith and receive God’s grace.
One finds similar beliefs within the Reformed tradition. Thorogood of the Presbyterian Church argues that the church does not have the authority to restrict access to the Table. He argues that it is Christ who calls persons, not the Church (Thorogood, 11). While certainly not advocating the invitation to unbelievers to partake in the Supper, he asserts that pastors should not restrict anyone who comes. There is no need to police the Table since errors will naturally happen within the church. In abandonment for the quest for church purity, Thorogood writes, “we should recognize all our approaches to the mystery of God as interim and fallible” (Thorogood, 12).

Unity in the Meal: The Debate on Open & Inter-Communion

2009-04-07T03:45:00.000-07:00

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus Christ on the eve of His crucifixion commanding His disciples to observe the Last Supper once He ascended, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Luke’s narrative continues, “In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” The apostle Paul, in his letter to the church at Corinth, reaffirms the institution of the Supper writing, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
Since the earliest days, the assembly of the church has been marked by the practice of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist. However, as the Faith has splintered into various denominations and traditions the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper has diversified into practices as different as the denominations themselves. Going back to the foundations of the Church, Christians have differed in their beliefs concerning the Eucharist, its purpose, and its function. Today, while the rhetoric uttered on Sunday morning may reflect the same ritual as instituted by Christ, its participants have not uniformly understood the ordinance. Beyond the debate on transubstantiation between Catholics and Protestants, Protestants have come to not only differ denomination to denomination on who may participate in the Supper, but even within the specific traditions themselves.
The battle brewing within the faith today largely concerns to whom the Lord’s Table is open. Some theologians and pastors argue that all people, whether regenerate believers or not are welcome to partake, while some at the other extreme restrict the sacrament to only members of a specific, local congregation. Often blinded by tradition, political trends, and socio-cultural whims, the Eucharist has come to be both given to those whom should be barred from the Table as well as denied to those whom the Lord calls to partake. The Lord’s Supper anticipates the Heavenly banquet foretold of in Revelation 19. Instituted by Jesus for the communion of believers with Himself and each other, regenerate believers should not be barred inter-denominationally among members of the body of Christ, given that those who participate subscribe to self-examination of their worthiness to partake in the meal of remembrance according to the parameters set by Christ and His Apostles.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Today pt. II

2009-04-01T04:00:00.000-07:00

In the thirteen-hundred year history of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory very little has actually changed in regards to its written form within the theology of the Catholic religion. While not as elaborate and mystical in perception in the modern Catholic’s mind, the practices and understanding of purgatory remain intact. Throughout the development and growth of the Catholic Church and religion, purgatory has grown and evolved hand-in-hand with the sacrament of penance. Purgatory’s foundations lay in the idea of the blemished soul at death still requiring purification and repentance before entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. Penance is essentially the act of purification and repentance on earth, which, when unfulfilled, must be completed in purgatory.
Similarly, the later medieval practice of penance did not carry over into modern Catholicism. The form of practice of the sacrament of penance did, however, maintain its continuity and appears today much like it did during the medieval period. Modern penance consists of four stages, all of which with medieval foundations. The first stage is the confession of the sin to a priest. This confession is done in secret between the person and the priest. Following the confession the sinner expresses sorrow for the sin as well as a determination to try to avoid sin in the future. Next the priest absolves the person for the sin and subscribes some suggested act of piety for the penitent. Finally, the absolved penitent is satisfied, or purged, of the sin through some act of piety. In essence this process follows the pattern of contrition, confession, and satisfaction with only the contrition and confession being reversed in order.
The modern definition and conception of the sacrament of penance does differ some from the medieval idea. First, modern Catholic theologians define sin in two regards: original and personal. Original sin is the sin that all humans are born with that dates back to the creation of mankind and Adam’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden. Catholics are cleansed of this sin through the sacrament of baptism. Personal sin, however, are those acts committed by each individual after being baptized. These sins break the friendship with God formed through the baptism and thus require the sacrament of penance in order to restore the friendship with God. The conception of the broken friendship has medieval origins yet the linkage between the sacrament of baptism and penance seems to be a modern adaptation. Like the doctrine of purgatory, though, the sacrament of penance in the modern Church, too, has remained rather unchanged since its inception in the medieval Church. Whereas changing cultures, governments, and customs have made some impact on certain areas, the essential understanding and practice of the sacrament of penance still holds true to Aquinas’s writings.
Jesus Christ was endowed with all of God’s power according to the Bible, and according to the Catholic faith, Christ passed some of those powers, specifically the power of the keys to Heaven to his apostle, St. Peter. St. Peter, in the Catholic Church, was the first Pope and subsequently directly passes these powers to each new Pope. Thus, what each Pope writes and dictates is interpreted as God-inspired and infallible. Viewing Catholic doctrine from this perspective, it becomes clear why aspects of the faith have remained relatively unchanged in the eighteen-hundred year history of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of purgatory and the sacrament of penance well illustrate this point. In essence, the entire modern Catholic Church is a contribution of the medieval period. Its writings, doctrines, sacraments, and beliefs are traditions that have lasted through the centuries and still survive today. As architecture evolved, monarchies collapsed, technology exploded, and a new form of Christianity swept through most of Europe, the medieval Catholic Church endured and still continues to stand amidst an ever-changing world.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Today

2009-03-31T04:00:00.000-07:00

The doctrine of the modern Catholic Church has remained true to the medieval definition and doctrine of purgatory as well as the sacrament of penance. First, in the canon of purgatory, modern doctrine continues the perception of Heaven as perfect and the complete elimination and absence of sin, therefore rejecting the admittance of those still imperfect and blemished by sin. Purgatory, thus, in the modern mind, continues to be necessary for the purging of souls still not completely unrepentant. Today’s church defines this idea of a blemished soul as the concept of peccati reliquiae. It explains the plight of all Christians as sinful creatures and the necessity of purification before God’s glories can be enjoyed in eternal paradise.
The modern doctrine has gone on to redefine the journey of one’s soul into three “churches,” with church being defined as a fellowship or group of believers in Christ Jesus. The first church is called the Church Militant. This stage defines man’s struggle against sin here on Earth. The second stage is referred to as the Church Suffering. This church consists of those souls being purged of their remaining sins in purgatory. The final church and stage for the soul is the Church Glorious and consists of those souls in Heaven.
On the practical level of modern Catholics, the doctrine and concept of purgatory is still accepted and regarded as Biblical truth. It is safe to say, however, that the modern mind has lost some of its fanciful ideas in the business of the technological world. Literature about the Wild Horde is no longer prominent and monasteries are no longer founded for the purpose of intercessory prayer. However, intercession still finds its place in modern Catholicism and is much apart of the Catholic Church today as in the Middle Ages.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Penance pt. III

2009-03-30T04:00:00.000-07:00

First, Aquinas addresses the need for sacramental forgiveness in every Christian’s life. He writes that only the grace of Christ and the sacrament of baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation; however, the sacrament of penance is necessary for those who are subject to sin. Confession serves as the first part of penance and can be viewed from two perspectives: confession in action and confession in relationship. First, the act of auricular confession is characterized as internal and external. The internal confession causes the external, and the importance of the act of confession lies in the submission to God of the confessor. This leads to confession in relationship.
Through the confession and submittal to God, man’s friendship with God is restored through the subsequent penance. Aquinas stresses that it is important to understand that since it is man who sins and breaks the relationship with God, it must be man who confesses his sin in order that God may restore the relationship through the sacrament of penance. Though God does not need the sacrament to forgive, man must submit himself before God through the sacrament in order to realize the relationship with God.
The second point Aquinas makes about penance is the signification of the sacrament. First, he redefines the three components of penance as contrition, confession, and satisfaction. He further writes that the sacrament of penance, “consists in a certain celebration, where a ritual is executed in such a way that we receive significatively what we should receive in holiness.” The signification of the sacrament of penance thus lies in what God gives to the penitent man when he humbles himself through the sacrament.
Aquinas illustrates the justification of the power of the sacrament of penance by discussing the sacrament in terms of the Old and New Covenant between man and God. Whereas the Old Covenant was made between Abraham and God in Genesis, the New Covenant was made through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and began the period of the Catholic Church. Thus Christ’s institutions of the sacraments of the New Covenant provide the link of efficient causality between His death and the effectiveness of the sacraments. In other words the form of the sacrament and the power of justification it holds, Aquinas writes, are completely derived from Christ’s institution and done in accordance to His teachings. It is in this point that the necessity of priests in the sacrament was realized. In adhering to the concept that all Heavenly power was vested in Jesus Christ, the medievalist concluded that as Jesus had handed the power of the keys to Heaven to Peter and subsequently to the Pope and the papacy, that the papacy thus possessed the power of the keys and specifically the power of absolution after penance.
According to Aquinas faith was also justified through the sacrament of penance. Justification with God was based on a union with Christ’s passion through faith. Further, he wrote that man was united to God through faith and through the sacraments. The medieval Church understood the sacraments as sacraments of faith and that the “sacraments contain[ed] power, which they derive[ed] from Christ’s passion. And that [man] is somehow united with this power when [he] receives the sacraments.” Thus God freely offers salvation to man, but because of his sin, he can only realize it and be justified regularly through the power of the sacrament of penance.
The medieval Church defined the sacrament of penance in accordance to St. Thomas’s writings. It was understood as an act necessary for man to understand and enjoy God’s forgiveness and salvation. Without it, man could still be saved and avoid damnation, but would not be able to enter Heaven and enjoy God’s glories. Whereas the sacrament stood on this solid foundation, the practice of the sacrament did not remain so intact. The practice and availability of indulgences heavily watered down the routine and acts of penance in the medieval Catholic Church. The upper class nobility saw themselves as too busy for acts of penance and therefore commissioned acts to be done for them, such as the building of churches and monasteries, as well as gave monetary gifts to the church. Soon indulgences became the norm in place of acts of penance.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Penance pt. II

2009-03-29T04:00:00.000-07:00

As the idea of purgation gained footing in the early medieval Church there quickly became a need for a system of penitence that could give clear assurance that one’s sins were forgiven. Penance as an early practice consisted of a priest proscribing acts of penance and charity based on the gravity of one’s sins. Further it was believed that the sin could not be forgiven until the penance was complete. But just as the doctrine of purgatory was redefined throughout the Middle Ages, the sacrament of penance underwent major reform in the ninth century. It was at this point that the modern sacrament of penance was adopted. Previously penance was understood as long and rigorous acts which had to be completed before the sinner could be discharged from both the guilt and the punishment. After the reformation of the sacrament, however, it became understood as absolution and satisfaction carried out in two stages. First, a priest had to absolve the sin after hearing it confessed and impose a penance. Second, the process of satisfaction could then be continued into the next life and could be finished in purgatory.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and doctor of Christian theology, wrote extensively on the concept of sacramental forgiveness as a gift of God. His writings formed the basis for the understanding and actual practice of the sacrament of penance. Such works today provide profound and incomparable explanations of the medieval sacrament of penance.
Aquinas first defines penance as an act necessary for man, not God. He writes that God does not need penance in order to forgive man for his sins, but rather man needs penance to bring him into the spiritual realm of God. Further, he goes on to explain the sacrament of penance and its necessity in four points: the need for sacramental forgiveness, the effective signification of the sacrament, the act of the sacrament itself, and the justification of faith in the sacrament. Through these points the sacrament finds it form and its practice.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Penance

2009-03-28T04:00:00.000-07:00

Upon the reformation of doctrine of penance, purgatory came to be defined as the place where the souls of the repentant “pay in torment the debt due for venial sins and for the mortals of which the guilt was absolved in the sacrament of penitence, with the performance of sufficient satisfaction.” Just as the early doctrine had characterized it, the idea of penance completion in purgatory made very logical sense to the medievalist. If the place of purgatory was a continuance of a soul’s life before entrance into Heaven, clearly the deeds and works of the penitent were continual as well. Christians in the late medieval period came to believe that if they as sinners were not fully contrite and their penance insufficient they could make up for it in purgatory. This new linkage between purgatory and penance had two primary consequences on the medievalist. First, it required a deeper understanding of one’s sins individually. Medieval Catholics became forced to recognize their own sinfulness and their inadequacy to completely be contrite for those sins. Second, it resulted in a pragmatic attitude taken by most Catholics in regards to their penance and imminent death, primarily in reference to the commissioning of intercessory prayer and indulgences.
For example, chantries and monasteries were built and financed by local gentry in return
for prayers for their souls. It became the obligation of such establishments so to recite prayers for their benefactor’s souls in order to lessen the punishment in purgatory. Historians find such successful accounts in literature from the period in the early works of Gregory the Great and the Venerable Bede, as well as profuse mentionings in later works such as Vitalis’s account of the Hellequin and didactic poems. It was in indulgences, however, where the greatest impact on Catholicism was made.
In 1343 A.D., the Doctrine of Indulgences granted total or partial remission of temporal punishment for sin to those who were truly penitent and had been to confession. Suddenly, to the Catholic mind, there was no longer any need to worry about death or whether or not the penance enjoined by the papacy was sufficient for their sins. As this doctrine and practice proliferated throughout Europe in the later Middle Ages, the practical and varied nature of indulgences, specifically taking hold in the 14th and 15th century, made is possible for the laity to face individual death with some confidence. No longer was the fear of Hell embedded in the hearts and minds of Catholics, but rather a new conviction that even the matter of death and salvation could to a certain extent be handled with a “calm practicality.”
This doctrine and practice appealed just as much to the later medieval and early modern Church as to their members. Matsuda writes that “It suited the Church to encourage prayers for the dead and pro anima bequests with the promise of a reward in the afterlife, in view of considerable profits these practices yielded.” Towards the end of the Middle Ages churches across Europe became dependent on tithes and endowments for their basic incomes. In the earlier modern church, acts of penance significantly dwindled and the extravagance and convenience of indulgences became a major point of criticism to the early Protestant reformers. 21

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Purgatory pt. III

2009-03-27T04:00:00.000-07:00

The evolution of purgatory in the Catholic Church is one of reformation and the lack thereof. Before the modern doctrine can fully be understood, it is important to look at the progression of the practice and understanding of purgatory from the late medieval period to the modern. Whereas the Catholic doctrine has remained essentially the same in its written form, the conception of purgatory amongst Catholics and its papacy has evolved over the centuries.
The image of the Wild Horde in the 12th century prompted a series of questions in regard to the location of purgatory and where it stood in the cycle of life. Early writings described purgatory as a place of punishment for lesser sins that had to be purged before one could enter the kingdom of Heaven, and on this foundation late medieval and early modern conceptions of purgatory’s place were defined.
The first point of clarity in the development of purgatory was its significant difference from Hell. From its early inception into Catholic doctrine, the place of purgatory had a clear purgative purpose as contrasted to the punishment of eternal damnation. Later medieval theologians expounded on this component to further define purgatory’s place between life and death. First, according to these scholars, purgatory was fundamentally different from Hell in that souls could be released and, through intercessory prayer, were objects of charity. Further, purgatory became defined as the medium, or filter, between Heaven and Earth. Purgation of sins was necessary before entrance into a place with the absence of sin. Thus, even though souls were punished in purgatory, it was only temporal and would eventually lead to paradise. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that purgatory was a place of charity and purification, characterized by hope or certainty of release. Thus, in the concept of purgatory, theologians and historians find a great juxtaposition of the pain and suffering of fire and separation from God and the joy of assured salvation and the hope of fulfillment. For the medievalist’s understanding of death, the doctrine of purgatory bridged the gap between “this life and the spiritual life of the soul beyond individual death, making death a vital moment of transition.”
Finally, whereas in Hell all souls are punished equally for their sins, purgatory is, “the place where souls are assigned according to the state of merit or demerit and are cleansed before being conveyed to the beatitude.” For some the punishment in purgatory is less and for others it is more. Theologians went as far as to define the three groups of people in purgatory: those whose contrition was imperfect, those whose penance was insufficient because the clergy had subscribed a penance too light, and those who loved worldly goods. This differentiation of souls in purgatory formed the vital link between the sacraments of purgatory and penance.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Purgatory pt. II

2009-03-26T04:00:00.000-07:00

From very early on in the Christian faith, historians find references to intercessory prayer. In this regard, intercessory prayer was defined as living Christians on earth praying for the souls and the release of loved ones in purgatory. In was believed that praying for deceased person’s soul could lessen their term and punishment in purgatory. Historians find an example of this in Orderic Vitalis’s account of The Wild Horde in The Ecclesiastical History in the early 12th century.
In medieval literature the Wild Horde, or Hellequin, was the procession of tortured souls in purgatory. In Vitalis’s story a local priest runs into a local procession of the Hellequin while wondering alone outside his town at night. This piece of literature reveals an abundance of information about the medievalist’s conception of purgatory and punishment fitting the earthly sin. Two primary illustrations can be drawn from Vitalis’s Wild Horde. The first component illuminates the second essential principle of the early doctrine of purgatory, that being the purgative nature of the punishment in purgatory. In the Horde, the young priest, Walchelin, witnesses women riding horses on saddles studded with burning nails to punish them for their sexual sins, men’s cries not being heard to punish them for lie telling, and knights burdened by heavy, burning armor to punish them for their war crimes and murders. Each soul receives certain tortures and punishments fitting specifically to their earthly sins so that they may be cleansed and purified before their arrival in Heaven.
Walchelin’s encounter with a specific knight illustrates the third component of purgatory: the availability of intercessory prayer for the help of souls. After being saved from one knight’s grasp by another, the young priest learns his rescuer is his brother. His brother, Robert, son of Ralph the Fair, reveals to Walchelin that when,

You were ordained in England and sang your first Mass for the faithful
departed your father Ralph escaped from his punishments and my shield,
which caused me great pain, fell from me. As you see I still carry this sword,
but I look in faith for release from this burden within the year.”

Here historians find an extremely clear account of intercessory actions taken by the living and their benefit to the dead. According to the account, Walchelin’s father was released from purgatory and his brother’s punishments lessened because of his own service in the priesthood. Further in the passage Robert asks Walchelin for more prayers and compassionate alms in order that he, too, will be released from purgatory.8
This passage in Vitalis’s History is one of many accounts of the Hellequin in medieval literature. While early theological writings reveal a great deal to the modern historian about the early doctrine of purgatory, the tales of the Wild Horde provide glimpses of the doctrine in real practice. The three essential components are spelled out specifically in Gregory the Great’s writings; however, The Ecclesiastical History illustrates the practice and common belief in the purgative and temporal nature of punishment as well as the benefit and importance of intercessory prayer for the dead. These early medieval accounts define the early doctrine of purgatory in the medieval Catholic Church. And while historians find the same foundations and writings in modern doctrine on purgatory, a different portrayal is found than that of the Wild Horde.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection: Purgatory

2009-03-25T04:00:00.000-07:00

As a written and defined doctrine, purgatory first appeared between 1170 and 1180; however, documents hint at the idea far earlier in Christian history. As early as 731 A.D., in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, the basic principles and characteristics of purgatory lay in place. At this stage in Catholicism purgatory was defined by three central components. The first principle understood that purgatory existed for the remission of lighter sins after death. Caesarius of Arles and Augustine the Great both wrote and defined such lighter sins, or slight sins, as sins without which man cannot live and to which “even the saints could not and would not always be immune.” These sins, in the early Church theologian minds, were understandable and therefore not meriting eternal damnation. Purgatory, thus, in its earliest essence, was a place for redemption of the lesser sins.
The second essential component of purgatory was the purgative and temporal nature of its punishment. To the medieval mind, the nature of purgatorial fire was extremely important for the laity as they were seen, in contrast to the papacy, as the ones who had to prepare for such punishments. Imperative to this understanding was its difference from the fires of Hell. Whereas Hell tortured sin-ridden souls as punishment for their deeds on Earth, purgatory fires purified repentant souls before admittance into Heaven.
Fire, as it should be understood in the Middle Ages, was a major device of purification and held great importance in the medieval concept of purgatory. In medicine, fire was used to cauterize wounds and for primitive attempts at sterilization. Quickly this idea of purification through fire leaked into Christianity. Just as Church leaders began burning heretics in order to purify their blasphemous notions, the fires of purgatory were thought of in the same light.
This second component quickly gave way to the sacramental linkage between penance and purgatory. Purgatory began to been seen in the 12th and 13th century as the place where penance was finished. It was very commonly believed that when a person died they still had penance for their sins to complete before being completely remitted of them. Purgatory, then, became the place for such remission and the completion of penance.
The third and final principal notion of purgatory in the Middle Ages was the availability of intercessory prayer for the help of souls in purgatory:

Instances of successful intercession for the dead are often recorded
for posterity by patristic writers such as Gregory or Bede, and because
of their undiminished popularity, these tales were often quotes quite
nonchalantly in Middle English didactic poetry.

The Medieval and Modern (Dis)Connection in the Roman Catholic Church: Introduction

2009-03-24T04:00:00.000-07:00

It would have been most adventurous to have been a Christian in 11th century. Besides the fact of not having any choice in your mode of worship or doctrinal belief, the imagination, alone, of the medieval Church would have consumed your every emotion. How can we rightly assert this? Just read what the people of the day felt and thought. Utter fear and compulsion dictated the lives of many lay persons in incessant efforts to avoid eternal damnation and the pains of purgatory.
A few years back I had the opportunity to spend an extended amount of time with the people who are most committed to the Catholic faith in the entire world. Who? you may ask. Not the Vatican, but the Irish. For three months I attended more masses than I think most American "Catholics" attend in a lifetime; and what did I learn? Do what you're told and it'll be okay. My studies of medieval thought and philosophy has been soaked in Catholic doctrine and practice and it is with my intellectual (and comical) lament that today's Catholic Church no longer emphasizes and describes the sacraments like they once did. Have the beliefs changed? If not, why has the practice? We've spent so much time this past month looking at doctrine and proper theological process that I thought a few days ago I'd do a series based on a few medieval plays which demonstrated how the laity has dealt with (historically) the absence of the Scriptures. While even more exaggerated and comical than the mystery plays, it evokes for me other emotions when I read the doctrines of the sacraments in medieval Catholic religion. Think of the Scriptures and our commitment towards exegetical theology and then read about the sacraments of old. Look at the common practice today of the Roman Catholic Church and look at it then. How much disconnection AND connection can you find in the concepts of salvation, faith, and the afterlife in the medieval and modern Roman see?

The Middle Ages roughly lasted a millennium. In it was born a continent and a new world that forever changed the course of history and mankind. From law and architecture to marriage and religion, the modern world still shows remnants of the medieval civilization. One of the most significant and intact, however, is the Catholic Church. Roughly established as a religion in the Classical period of the Romans, the organization as it has come to be recognized was founded and built at the birth of the Dark Ages in Rome. As the Roman Empire collapsed and barbarian tribes swept across Europe, the Catholic Church became the focal point that reunited the continent. Today, its foundations still hold and its doctrines and practices still accepted and heralded by Catholics worldwide, seen best in close examinations of specific aspects of the faith. The Doctrine of Purgatory and the Sacrament of Penance serve as two such medieval contributions of the Catholic Church which, in their essence, remain intact in the modern world.

Bringing Religion to the Masses pt. IV

2009-03-22T06:00:00.000-07:00

Finally, Christ Before Pilate (1): The Dream of Pilate’s Wife illustrates another usage of the social satire and commentary for religious instruction. Whereas The Killing of Abel used anachronistic treatment to criticize corruption within the Church concerning tithing, as well as warn against the dangers of allowing blasphemy to go too far, along with the plays concerning Christ’s Coming, encouraged the medievals to believe in the magic that surrounded Catholic faith. Christ Before Pilate satirizes the aristocracy of the day with the intent of teaching against idleness.
Though he symbolically washes his hands of the guilt for Jesus’ crucifixion, it is Pilate who condemns Jesus and therefore responsible for his death. Throughout the play though, the audience finds Pilate to be rather hesitant towards condemning Christ, who repeatedly states that he finds no guilt with the man Annas and Caiphas have brought. It is Pilate’s position and aristocratic characterization, though, which ultimately leads to his sentencing of Christ. Throughout the play Pilate and his wife, either by their words or actions, are painted distinctively as Yorkshire aristocrats. The play opens with Pilate telling the audience to be quiet while he speaks and declares his prominence as Pontius. He is insecure about his power since, as an aristocrat with no real abilities, he relies on the support and strength of others. Further, the first 156 lines of the play are devoted towards Pilate’s lofty speech and interactions with his wife, their sleeping habits, and furniture. The audience witnesses his overall inaction and uselessness other than to spend money and enjoy nice things, aspects distinctively associated with medieval aristocrats. Again, though he finds no guilt in Jesus, when Annas and Caiphas threaten his power and standing in the minds of the Jews if he does not condemn Jesus, Pilate gives in to their requests.
The audience finds in Pilate a wealthy person who is completely idle and reliant on the strength of others to maintain his position and affluence. Ultimately, the audience also finds that because of his weakness and idleness he is easily swayed, and he ends up sentencing the Son of God to death. This is an extremely bold statement made by the playwright who uses this portrayal to satirize the contemporary aristocracy, going as far as to suggest that they, too, would crucify Christ. Further, in illustrating wealth and idleness as the forerunners of evil, the playwright encourages the audience to work hard and appreciate their middle and lower-class standing, for it’s the labourers who truly will benefit from Christ’s sacrifice, not the wealthy and powerful.
Through the anachronistic treatment of Biblical events and people, the playwrights of the English mystery plays made the Bible more accessible to the people than offered by the Catholic Church, as well as satirizing the Church and the powerful of the day. The cycles presented Scriptural stories and characters to the medievals in relevant and illuminating ways, all the while encouraging them to be good and faithful labourers through both a portrayal of what a good Christian was as well as what a good Christian was not.

Bringing Religion to the Masses pt. III

2009-03-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

The same techniques are found elsewhere in England in the York mystery plays. Despite each play being written by different clerics and for the sponsorship of different trade guilds, one finds throughout the cycle the incorporation of satire and anachronistic portrayal to enhance the message and accessibility of the play. One such case revolves around the character of Joseph, the earthly father of Christ, in the plays depicting the coming of Jesus. The medieval world was a skeptical one that functioned in the tension between believing in miracles and the supernatural while alternately believing such things did not happen personally. In other words, miracles existed, just not to the person who believes in them. The clerics who wrote these plays, however, did believe in the supernatural and were forced with the difficulty of making the supernatural events of the Virgin Birth believable. Joseph, therefore, becomes characterized at the quintessential York citizen, skeptical of all things supernatural and almost completely disbelieving that any such thing could ever happen to him.
In Joseph’s Trouble about Mary, the playwright characterizes Joseph as an older man who is past his prime and potentially impotent remarking, “My bones are heavy as lead, and may not stand in stead, as kenned it is full rife.” The audience would have understood and identified with the breaking down of Joseph’s body after a life of hard labour. They also would have recognized the social pressure that Joseph speaks of in lines 31-40 to marry someone younger to take care of him. In The Nativity he prays on his own behalf that, “God help them that are old and namely them that are unwield.”
Joseph is tired and much weaker than he use to be and in this stage of life is more concerned about physically surviving than much else. Playing off of this aspect, the playwright characterizes Joseph as nearly oblivious to the higher work taking place all around him. Concerning Mary’s pregnancy with the apparent Messiah, Joseph remarks, “But well I wot through prophecy a maiden clean should bear a child, but it is not she (Mary), sikerly, forthy I wot I am beguiled.” Later he attempts to rationalize Mary’s pregnancy, arguing, “Then see I well your meaning is – the angel has made her with child. Nay, some man in angel’s likeness with somekin gaud has her beguiled and that trow I.” Because of his limited scope and capacity, Joseph continually tries to rationalize Mary’s pregnancy. He, like any citizen of York watching, has no reason or conviction to believe that great divine works could involve him for either good or bad. Equal to his ignorance of divine providence and blessing is his ignorance of evil, remarking in response to Gabriel’s warning of Herod’s intent to kill Jesus in The Flight into Egypt, “But Lord, what ails the king at me, for unto him I never offend? Alas, what ails him for to spill small young bairns that never did ill in word nor deed, unto lede by night nor day?”
The playwrights of these plays, somewhat oddly, find Joseph’s situation the most intriguing of the themes of the coming of Christ rather than the actual coming of God’s son into the world. The average medieval citizen is able to relate most to Joseph, so in highlighting his role within these series of Biblical events the playwrights are able to draw the audience into the plays and impart lessons of trust and faith in obeying God. The plays also reinforce Church doctrine and belief in divine, supernatural occurrences, such as the mystery of the Eucharist, and attempt to convince the audience that God’s work is all around and ever-present.

Bringing Religion to the Masses pt. II

2009-03-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

The Killing of Abel employs humor and blasphemy as well as social satire to present its message. Written by an author known as the Wakefield Master, The Killing…comes largely from Cain’s point of view before, during, and after he murders his brother, Abel. The Wakefield Master employs social satire to portray Cain as a character with whom the audience of the play could identify and probably shared many of his views. In doing so, the audience by play’s end recognize that they themselves hold blasphemous views and the urgent need for their repentance if they hope to avoid Cain’s fate.
Cain first deals with the issue of tithing and the disjointed relations between the laity and the papacy. In regards to tithing, Cain highly questions the purpose of doing so when, in his eyes, the papacy often keeps the tithes for itself. In response to Abel’s urging that he tithe soon, Cain responds that, “my farthyng is in the preest hand – syn last tyme I offyrd.” Further, since it is not to God that men tithe but to the pockets of clerics, Cain questions why poor men, such as himself, should impoverish themselves for the sake of contributing to priests’ wealth; “For hath I giffen away my goode, then myght I go with a ryffen hood, and it is better that hold that I have, then go from doore to doore and crave.” The audience likely identified with this sentiment and shared frustration that the Church required them to continue to impoverish themselves for the sake of contributing to the already wealthy Church. Cain dwells upon this disunion between the masses and the papacy when he likens Abel’s encouragement to a sermon. Cain recalls a popular medieval image of a fox convincing geese that it is to their own betterment that they allow the fox to eat them. He mockingly calls on his associates to “let furth youre geyse,” for, “the fox will preche.”
Cain does not just find issue with organized religion and tithing but views God as the source of all his misfortune and troubled life.

Shuld I leife my plough and all thing – and go with the to make offering?
Nay, thou fyndys me not so mad! Go to the dwill, and say I bad! What
gifys God the, to rose hym so? Me gifys he not bot soro and wo.

God is a bully in Cain’s eyes, and he arbitrarily blesses some people and curses other. Therefore, he is not worthy of devotion or sacrifice. While much of the audience would have shared Cain’s sentiments that God is often responsible for misfortune, the Wakefield Master has Cain take this view a step further to show the audience where such feelings can lead. Later Cain reveals that he views God as his enemy and that he and God are polar opposites, remarking:

For he has ever yit beyn my fo, for had he my frynd beyn, other-gatys it had
beyn seyn.

Cain believes that since God does not bless his crops, then God must hate him and therefore is his enemy. Again, the belief that misfortune was a result of either God’s action or inaction would have been common and drawn the audience into sympathy with Cain. However, through Cain’s words the Wakefield Master states what such views really mean. Though he never clearly states whether or not it is wrong to believe that God blesses some and curses others, the Master’s portrayal of Cain as the bad, unsuccessful plowman, and antithetical archetype of the good, hard-working Christian, as well as God’s curse for Cain at the end of the play, would have sent the message to the audience to be careful how they view God for it could lead to a cursed and damned existence.

Bringing Religion to the Masses

2009-03-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

Historically, Scripture has not always been at the forefront of the Christian tradition. The Medieval Catholic Church placed high and sacred value on many things, however, the Bible was rarely one of them. To receive and comprehend the revelation of Scripture, therefore, the laity looked to stained glass representations, oral stories and traditions, and the arts. In one particular instances the performance of plays proved to be a nearly exclusive means by which the common layperson of northern England received their theology. This series will trace the use of plays and literary devices to educated the common man about Christianity in the absence of Scripture.
Discrediting a literary work when it treats historical events and characters anachronistically, at times, may be appropriate. Understandably, when an author reads history back on itself as well as inserts contemporary characters into past events, the validity of the work becomes highly questionable. However, the English mystery cycles of the Middle Ages present a valid exception to this practice when scrutinized within its culture and genre. One finds that rather than compromising the message of the Biblical events they portray, the social satire and insertion of contemporary beliefs throughout these religious plays serve to supplement the lessons and message of the Bible as well as comment on contemporary issues. In an age where Bible-reading was non-existent among the masses, and Christianity was subject to the interpretation of a select few, the anachronistic treatment and insertion of social commentary and satire provided the audience and community with religious lessons that were often lost in the Catholic tradition.
The later medieval Catholic Church was a highly organized and orthodox institution. The largest land-owning entity in the world, the Church was the foundation of society and the only body to which most European monarchs were subject. In medieval times, the Church held a monopoly on salvation, the eternal state of every person’s soul, and questioning the Church could not only result in persecution, it could seriously threaten one’s chances of avoiding damnation and torture in the after-life. To ensure this monopoly, the Church controlled the accessibility of information by the masses, and it limited how freely and openly any person could make their own interpretations and commentaries on Biblical faith.
It was not, however, that the Church intended to maliciously oppress the masses with religion and keep them in the dark, but rather it believed that the largely illiterate masses were incapable of reading the Bible and understanding it on their own. To do so might endanger a person’s soul. Therefore, it was left to Catholic priests to act as guardians and to protect the laity from misinterpretation and damnation by interpreting the Bible for them and instructing them as to its lessons. As a result, the average European would never in their lifetime read the Holy Scriptures which incorporated the faith they professed to live. Their belief in God and their knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ would be restricted to that which was dispensed by the priests.
However, the English mystery plays originating in the late fourteenth century portrayed multiple Bible stories once a year in the vernacular of all persons who chose to attend. The plays, written by clerics, were not sponsored or censored by the Church, but rather by the city’s trade guilds and intended to present prominent events and morals from the Bible in an easily understood and entertaining fashion. Part of this effort to make the stories more accessible and entertaining was to place the events of the Bible in a later medieval, English context relevant to the audiences’ culture and experience. In the play The Killing of Abel, and in the plays portraying Christ’s coming into the world (Joseph’s Trouble about Mary, The Nativity, The Flight into Egypt), and Christ Before Pilate (1): The Dream of Pilate’s Wife, the anachronistic treatment of the characters as well as the insertion of contemporary social issues enhanced the purpose of the plays linking their message to the lives of the English medievals

The Development of a Theological Process: John Calvin pt. II

2009-03-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

With the original text in hand, Calvin moves to the diligent study of the text. His hermeneutic is based on two major components: the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the use of Scripture interpreting itself. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is foundational in Calvin’s theological method. Just as the Spirit was central in the ministry of incarnate Word (Christ) so, too, the Spirit is central in the interpretation and use of the written Word (Scripture). Human understanding and reasoning is fundamentally flawed and, therefore, insufficient in grasping the nature and scope of the Word. The Holy Spirit must illumine the mind and heart of the believer to enable him to grasp Scripture (3.2.33). Since correct understanding comes only through the illumination of the Spirit, right interpretation and theology is limited only to believers, or “the elect.”
Through the Spirit’s illumination, Scripture testifies to and interprets itself. Throughout the selected passage, whenever Calvin arrives upon a difficult text he seeks other passages in the Bible that speak to the same subject. Employing the entire scope of the Word, Calvin derives his doctrine from the holistic Biblical treatment of the subject, rather than from any one passage. While no one man’s interpretation is ever perfect or fail-proof, Calvin’s hermeneutical emphasis on the unity of Scripture helps protect him from inserting personal opinions or postulations not warranted by Scripture.
Finally, only after extensive exegetical study on the Scriptural treatment of a given topic, Calvin searches the annals of Church History for support and corroboration. In his treatment of the doctrine of sanctification, Calvin employs the writings of Augustine to reinforce the notion of the sinfulness of believers (3.3.13). Furthermore, writing on the mode of repentance in regards to the process of faith, he employs the sermons of Bernard of Clairvaux for support (3.3.15).
Calvin’s theological method, as demonstrated in the selected passage of his Institutes, attests to the exegetical centrality of Calvin’s doctrine. He rightly places hermeneutics at the forefront of his method, committing towards the faithful interpretation of Scripture for the development of a “systematic” theology. More than providing a bulk of Scripture references to back his positions, Calvin allows Scripture in its entirety to direct his theology.

The Development of a Theological Process: John Calvin

2009-03-17T06:01:00.000-07:00

Even with an apt understanding of revelation in hand, the challenging portion of theology remains ahead. How we use the resources of revelation (namely Scripture) to answer questions and develop a Biblical worldview is called the theological method, or process. Various theologians over the ages have proposed various methods for developing a systematic theology. Personally, I have found great value in the theological work of John Calvin. While I cannot always agree with some of his propositions, and rarely can agree with the tenets of "Calvinists," Calvin offers a well-balanced theological method.
As demonstrated in the Institutes, it is clear that Calvin’s theology was driven by a thorough exegetical process and robust study. His treatment of faith, the Holy Spirit, and repentance demonstrate the enormous weight Calvin anchored on the Word, employing his hermeneutic to instruct his theology, rather than merely finding Scripture to support his prior-conceived beliefs. Calvin’s sound exegetical, theological method consisted of four components: the sufficiency and supremacy of Scripture, the use of the original languages of Scripture, the illumination of Scripture, and, only at the end, the testing of doctrine against the history of the Church.
The selected passage of the Institutes (3.1-3.3) proves difficult to read at any length without being confronted by Calvin’s repeated statements of the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. Whether in refutation of his opponents or in his doctrine of soteriology, Calvin is convinced of the central and cosmic authority of the Word of God. All matters, whether strictly doctrinal / theological or not, have their proper beginning and end with Scripture.
Calvin draws a distinction, however, between the supremacy of the best Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture and the “erroneous” Latin translation of the Vulgate. It logically follows that in order to make accurate interpretation of the Word one must consult the actual words written (i.e. those penned by the human authors of Scripture). In his refutation of “Schoolmen,” Calvin demonstrates the critical significance of the original texts and how, at times, a difference in translation can yield two different interpretations and, subsequently, doctrines.

A View of Natural Theology: Conclusion

2009-03-15T06:30:00.000-07:00

The Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians, “we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” Man’s intellect is the source of all knowledge and where man assents to God’s wisdom and glory. As Newman demonstrates, however, in order to assent and have genuine belief in God’s revealed truth, man must apprehend the predicate of the proposition being made. It is not necessary that he understand, but simply apprehend them.
However, as numerous philosophers over the millennia have demonstrated, and Philo and Demean argue, the human intellect is simply too limited to even perceive notions of the Divine Intellect. Paul concurs writing, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” However, Paul offers resolution stating, “We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us…we have the mind of Christ.”
For Newman, therefore, the issue becomes by what process the Spirit of God makes divine wisdom known. In accordance with Romans 1:20, Newman, the empiricist, believes that many of God’s basic truths are manifested in nature. In other words, the Spirit of God works through Creation to make the Creator known. Experience enables man to understand his moral constitution, and thereby to signify his future from his present. His conscience, participating in the world around him, reminds him constantly that he is not sufficient for his own happiness but “dependent upon the sensible objects which surround him, and that these he cannot take with him when he leaves the world.” In the confusion of common life and mans’ own failures, nature serves to remind man that God is good and provides. Creation is ultimately the forum and stage where God demonstrates the universal rule of “good to the good, evil to the evil.” The religion of nature is not a deduction of reason but a tradition between mankind and Heaven.
To have the mind of Christ, therefore, man must be rooted in nature, seeking truth, as St. Augustine would suggest, wherever it is found. Natural theology, as both Hume and Newman would agree, serves as only the foundation and beginning to true philosophical theological inquiry. As Newman discusses at length in Grammar of Assent, Scripture and revealed religion/theology is a fundamental part of faith. For both philosophers, however, the quest begins, again as Augustine writes, how one can call upon God. The journey and process of that inquiry, however, is extremely important and pivotal to arriving at the intended destination. Paul concludes,

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since
in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him,
God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save
those who believe…It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who
has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness,
holiness, and redemption.

A View of Natural Theology: Newman pt. 2

2009-03-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

After establishing this basic outline of the epistemology of religious belief, Newman looks to consider various debates, questions, and fields of study within Christianity. For our present study we look specifically at how Newman’s grammar of assent works within the field of natural religion, and what resolutions, if any, he offers to Hume’s Dialogues. Natural religion serves as an integral aspect of religious belief because, as Newman asserts, it is the foundation of all other religious belief. Scripture has its place and significance as well as other forms of revealed religion, yet every aspect in the process of religious maturation and understanding requires the firm foundation that natural religion creates, remarking, “we get our facts from the witness, first of nature, then of revelation, and our doctrines, in which they issue, through the exercise of abstraction and inference.
Newman writes, “all men possess an intellect and imagination and likewise all religious men are theologians in some manner.”21 Whereas traditional Aristotelianism, taught that a person required extensive training and education to engage in philosophical and theological thought, Newman suggests that by man’s own inherent powers he is capable of theological studies. He believes that theology cannot exist without the initiative and “abiding presence” of religion. This inquiry is one necessary for all men and serves as the foundations for religious faith. Newman defines Christianity as a:

definite message from God to man distinctly conveyed by His chosen
instruments, and to be received as such a message; and therefore to be
positively acknowledged, embraced, and maintained as true, on the ground
of its being divine, not as true on intrinsic grounds, not as probably true,
or partially true, but as absolutely certain knowledge, certain in a sense in
which nothing else can be certain, because it comes from Him who neither
can deceive nor be deceived.

In response to Hume and Romans 1:20, Newman views Christianity as an addition to nature. He believes that the two do not contradict each other but rather depend and enhance. In other words Christianity is the completion of “Natural Religion.” In Dialogues the characters debate how Creation speaks of the Creator. How does God manifest his attributes through nature? Perhaps more difficult to answer, how does man utilize nature to derive those indivisible qualities of the Supreme Being?
Newman answers that nature uses three main channels to enhance man’s knowledge of God: the human mind, the voice of mankind, and the course of the world, or in other words common human life and affairs. Of these qualities the most authoritative is the human mind. Whereas Hume seems to limit natural theology and Creation to the natural, physical world, Newman fights this Platonic dichotomy incorporating all things created by God. This scope and view of nature extends beyond the physical universe to include the human intellect and experience. Newman seems to support Cleanthes view that by the power and reason of the human intellect, man can draw analogy from the natural world to assent to God’s attributes and perfections.
Newman illustrates that the intellect, or conscience, is man’s great internal teacher. It teaches him, “not only that God is, but what He is; it provides for the mind a real image of Him, as a medium of worship.” The conscience provides an inherent code of right and wrong and moral duties, which are God’s laws. Most significantly of what man’s intellect perceives and assents to know of God is that He is man’s ‘Judge.’ In addition to the many self-evident truths, Newman demonstrates, that reveal this truth, history illustrates that all cultures demonstrate this belief and all other notions of God stem from this acknowledgement.

A View of Natural Theology: Newman pt. 1

2009-03-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

The book of Romans assures man that God exists and that man has no reason to not acknowledge Him as God and pay Him the piety He deserves. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians takes this manifesto a step further illustrating that by external nature we see God at work and His existence and by internal nature man receives divine blessings of wisdom and revelation. It is important to note that Paul is not drawing a dichotomy here between the physical and the spirit but rather demonstrating their unity. Before tackling how this works in natural theology, John Henry Cardinal Newman illustrates the basic empiricism of philosophical theology and its foundations for natural theology.
By what means man comes to a belief is of great importance to Newman. He divides that consent of knowledge to three methods: doubt, inference, and assent. When one doubts a piece of information he is, in a way, making an acknowledgement of some belief, in this case by doubting one thing he acknowledges its antithesis. An inference is a conditional act because it relies on some other experience or proposition to understand (a posteriori). Finally, one believes by assent, which is unconditional or knowledge a priori. When man assents to something he considers it for its own sake and in its intrinsic sense. In order to assent to something, however, it requires apprehension of the matter asserted. A person must have an adequate comprehension of the predicate of the proposition to possess a comprehension of the subject asserted. In other words, as Newman uses as an illustration, if one is seeking to comprehend what ‘Trade’ is, and finds that, ‘trade is the interchange of goods,’ then he must be able to apprehend what ‘the interchange of goods’ means before he can assent to this definition of ‘Trade.’
Newman further demonstrates that it is possible to apprehend without understanding. Being aware of a natural law or the habits of the cosmos may yield apprehension and assent without explaining how and why such natural phenomena take place. Newman suggests, “I may take a just view of a man’s conduct, and therefore apprehend it, and yet may profess that I cannot understand it.” Apprehension is simply an intelligent acceptance of the idea.
Apprehension varies in strength and is stronger when concerned with propositions more familiar to the person. Human nature, Newman argues, is more likely to be affected by concrete images and notions than by abstract ones. Furthermore, experiences and their images strike and occupy the mind, as abstractions and their combinations do not. In matters of religion, therefore, it makes sense that the more tangible the evidence and experience with the Supreme Being that stronger the assent in the belief of that Deity. An act of assent “is most perfect and highest of its kind, when it is exercised on propositions which are apprehended as experiences and images which stand for things.” Newman asserts then that real assent, or belief, does not lead to action. Rather, “the images in which it lives have the power of the concrete upon the affections and passions, and by means of these indirectly become operative.”

A View of Natural Theology: Hume pt. 3

2009-03-12T06:30:00.000-07:00

Whereas it seems as if Philo and Demea are wrapping up the dialogue, Cleanthes offers one last compelling argument for why man’s intellect has a role in natural theology. He argues that if human ideas have absolutely no correspondence with God’s nature then there is no point in philosophy or theology. He asks, “how do you mystics, who maintain the absolute incomprehensibility of the Deity, differ from skeptics or atheists, who assert, that the first cause of All is unknown and unintelligible?” If man does not ascribe any vocabulary and analogy to the supreme Deity, then he ultimately has no actual belief in that Deity.

For though it be allowed, that the Deity possesses attributes, of which
we have no comprehension; yet ought we never to ascribe to him any
attributes, which are absolutely incompatible with that intelligent nature,
essential to Him.

Cleanthes will not allow that the language of analogy has no place in natural theology. From Creation there is some epistemology that reveals the “eternal power and divine nature,” to the extent that to all men it is “clearly seen.” The Apostle Paul states that by and through Creation all men know of God’s existence, though they may not pay him reverence as God nor serve Him. But as Demea points out in Part II of the Dialogues, God’s being and existence is not in question, but His nature and how man comes to understand that nature. Both sides make compelling arguments.
For Philo and Demea natural theology simply provides the evidence of a Creator; however, man knows nothing of His processes or His nature by Creation. Any interactions and revelations of the divine nature come from pious worship and definition of God a priori. Cleanthes, however, proposes that the structure and complexity of the universe mirrors the same complexities that man creates. The philosopher can, therefore, draw analogy between human intellect and divine intellect to know God’s nature more fully. Cleanthes’s argument serves as an a posteriori view of God, defining Him by experiences and in reference to other things, namely Creation. Hume does not neatly wrap up this debate nor provide conclusive arguments for one side or the other. Hume provides the foundation for this discussion on the epistemology of natural theology without ever really defining how natural theology works. His philosophical arguments set forth in the Dialogues appositely explore the dynamics of Romans 1:20, however, natural theology extends much farther than simple naturalism as Newman in An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians demonstrate.

A View of Natural Theology: Hume pt. 2

2009-03-11T06:30:00.000-07:00

As the three personas enter into a discussion then as to the nature of God, the discussion turns to a debate on the epistemology of theology. Demea argues against anthropomorphism remarking that rather than using the same language that one employs concerning man for God’s attributes “we should say that he comprehends the perfection of matter without being material; comprehends perfection of spirits without being spirit; Being without restriction.” Philo adds that man’s belief in God essentially comes down to the fact that all things require a cause and that cause man names God, to which he attributes all perfections and notions. To derive His nature man’s only choice is sound piety and just reasoning by which he can understand the incomprehensible and mysterious nature of God. He cannot look to use experience to attribute qualities to God since man has no experience of the divine attributes and operations.
As hinted at earlier in the dialogue, however, Cleanthes feels that man must use the world and his experience in it to begin to understand the supreme Deity. Creation and its many complexities afford man the ability to draw analogy to his own complexities and faculties thereby attaining glimpses of the Divine Faculties and Intellect. He argues that workings of the world and their complexity resemble workings of man: simply a complex system of machines subdivided into lesser machines, which are divided into lesser machines, etc. Man is “led to infer…that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man: though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed.” 6
Philo counters that man’s experience in the world is too limited to truly have a grasp for the complexities of the universe. Hume’s theories from Enquiry concerning the unnecessary conjunction between cause and effect come into play through Philo’s rebuke. “Order, arrangement, or the adjustment of final causes is not, of itself, any proof of design; but only so far as it has been experienced to proceed from that principle.” In other words, just because human experience and natural “laws” have proceeded by consistent methods does not mean that one can assume it will continue to do so. Furthermore, if one extends this logic to the higher, incomprehensible intellect of the supreme Being, one cannot make any such supposition of His methods or qualities.
Experience teaches, in Philo’s mind, that there is an original principle of order in mind, not matter. The foundations of all Creation, therefore, lie in the Creator and His intellect. This does not, however, allow man to presume how Creation came about. For Philo, man bears witness to the all the aspects of the universe he has access to. This experience dictates that there must be a supreme Deity who is the cause of it all and that He brought it about by His intellect, hence the source of all order is “mental” not “material.” Man’s knowledge of God ceases here, however. Thought, design, and intelligence found in men are only offspring and subdivisions of the original principle. Though man’s basic experience reveals to him the existence of a Creator (Romans 1:20) his intellect can take him no further. Philo offers an illustration:

From observing the growth of a hair, can we learn any thing concerning
the generation of a man? Would the manner of a leaf’s blowing, even
though perfectly known, afford us any instruction concerning the vegetation
of a tree?

Whereas Cleanthes would offer that by the powers of analogy man can discern the processes by which God formed Creation and thereby understand elements of his nature, Philo argues that the powers of human reasoning have proven by experience to be weak and fallible. Any conclusions or conjectures summoned by the human mind about the supreme Deity by such a process are incapable of withstanding the skepticism necessary for philosophical thought. The mystic, Demea, offers then that man’s only response, in the dearth of any particular knowledge of God, consists of perfect worship and mysterious self-annihilation or total extinction of all man’s faculties.

A View of Natural Theology: Hume pt. 1

2009-03-10T05:30:00.000-07:00

Moving from the doctrine of revelation and discussion of the special revelation (specifically that of the Scriptures), I think it serves us well to take a look over the next couple of days at some views of general revelation, or natural theology. History has provided a vast number of philosophers to examine during this survey, but for our current purposes, I'd like to look at David Hume (Dialogues Concerning Human Understanding) and John Henry Cardinal Newman (A Grammar of Assent) . While Hume is hopefully at least a recognizable name to you, Newman dwells in the realm of obscurity, unfortunately. Their views, however, I find particularly illuminating, given our current study.
For David Hume the foundations of faith are built on the foundations of epistemology. Acknowledgment of the Supreme Being, he argues, is a fact that even atheists believe. “No man,” Hume’s persona Demea remarks in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, “at least, of common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard to a truth so certain and self-evident.” What separates the faithful from the rest, then, centers on the assent and epistemology in the acknowledgement of that Deity. In his Dialogues, Hume debates this issue at its core foundations concerning natural theology. For John Henry Cardinal Newman natural theology serves as the starting point for all theology, as all other elements of the Christian faith are built upon it. While Hume provides the forum for discussion on this issue and the value of Creation in ascertaining the nature of God, Newman offers a delicate solution and compromise. Employing the opening chapters of the Apostle Paul’s letters, Romans and 1 Corinthians, we find that Hume and Newman devise an empirical epistemology and a philosophical base for Christian theology.
In Romans 1:20 Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” For Hume’s characters, Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes, the dialogue concerns exactly how God makes His qualities known. Paul says that regardless of all other things, God makes Himself known through Creation, but how exactly He does so remains in question. Demea aptly points out thus, “the question is not concerning the being but the nature of God.”
In true Aristotelian fashion the debate requires prior work. To engage in the “science” of natural theology Hume requires a panegyric person, well-versed in the social and applied sciences of the age. While Philo believes that one must first think as a total skeptic of all natural laws and sciences in order to ascertain which are truly valuable in the search for God’s nature, Cleanthes criticizes this viewpoint with great fervor. For Hume the expertise one acquires through his lifetime is useless without experience and participation in the common life. Cleanthes argues, “in vain would the skeptic make a distinction between science and common life, or between one science and another;” adding that he who would seek God and deeper philosophical truths, “must act, I own, and live, and converse like other men.” If Creation is God’s blueprint and medium by which His invisible qualities are made known, man must live and experience that world and draw as much as he can from Creation.

The Ability to Do Theology: The Bible Tells Me So

2009-03-09T06:30:00.001-07:00

Before engaging in an in depth study of the Bible one must first ask what he believes about the Bible. How he views Scripture and the presuppositions he brings with him will dramatically influence how he will read and interpret its contents. The importance of sorting out these questions is of even greater importance to the Christian scholar and minister. Responsible for the spiritual welfare of the congregations that are entrusted to them by the Lord, it is crucial that ministers cling to four basic beliefs about the Bible: the Bible is God’s Living Word, God is the theme of the Bible, the Bible is to be believed, and the focus of the Bible is on Christ.
The Bible is not just a book. It is not simply a sociological book on ethics. It is more than the collections of wise sayings. The Bible is the Word of God. Before even opening the Scriptures one must first reckon himself with this statement. There is no middle stance that can be taken or moderate position to be held. Either one believes the Bible to be of the divine Creator or not. While the numerous proofs demonstrate the historical reliability of the Bible it is ultimately a question of faith in which the Christian minister must answer, “yes.”
How can one be expected to believe its contents if he does not believe in the general precept that the Bible comes from God? Further, how can he expect his flock to believe in it if he does not? The Bible not only testifies to the works of the Triune God in antiquity but also testifies to His ministry today. The Bible is the living Word of God. Because God is unchanging and sovereign He continues to reveal Himself both to the Church and individuals by means of the Holy Scriptures. In order for its teachings to hold relevance it must be a living and constant revelation of God. If the Bible is not the Word of God and it is not the source of daily revelation of the Godhead then the Christian faith is worthless and foolishness. One cannot expect to have any significant engagement with the text or to receive the Spirit’s guidance in reading it without first approaching the Bible in faith in its source and importance as the living Word of God.
The theme of the Bible, for that matter, is God. The Scriptures begin, “In the beginning God…” From the outset it is made extremely clear that the entire body of Scripture is about one thing: God. Through all the narrative accounts and poetry of the Old Testament to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the apostles’ epistles God remains the central focus. The Bible is a story of God redeeming man and reconciling him unto Himself. It is not about man finding salvation but about the One who provides that salvation and goes to immeasurable lengths in order to ensure it.
If one misses the message that the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to man then the Bible will simply turn into another self-help book. Salvation is not about what man does for himself, but rather about the self-bearing curse God endures for the sake of man. The message is unchanging and unwavering throughout Scripture. God is holy, righteous, and just. Man is sinful, corrupt, and lost. From Genesis to Revelation the reader is reminded both of man’s attempts to control his own fate and save himself as well as his inability to do so. God, however, is mighty to save! He assumes all the responsibility and works in His infinite love and sovereignty to reconcile man unto Himself. He is at the center of the stage of history. He is in the spotlight. The Bible is about God.
Since the Bible then is from God and about God, it should be believed. As aforementioned the Bible has been demonstrated to be historically valid. The Christian can read it with confidence knowing that its contents have been faithfully transmitted through the generations. More importantly it should be believed because it says so. The Bible does not shy away from confessing and illustrating its divine inspiration and inerrancy (2 Tim. 3:16). God gave the Bible to man so that man could know Him. Therefore, in addition to simply believing its contents to be true, the faithful minister of God must obey the commandments in Scripture and proclaim them to his congregation. Belief in the Bible only goes as far as it impacts the life of the believer.
Ultimately, the Bible focuses on Jesus Christ. In all things throughout Scripture Christ plays an active role. Whether in the Genesis account of Creation or in the Revelation prophecy of establishing a new earth and new heaven, all things are made and sustained through Christ. As aforementioned the theme is the Bible is God’s reconciling work of man unto Himself. Jesus Christ is the person who fulfills that work. As early as Genesis 3 the Bible anticipates the coming of Jesus Christ. The Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ is its climax. The establishment of Christ as the Forever King on a Forever Throne in the end times is its conclusion. The Bible points to Christ as the Saviour and Sustainer of mankind. Fully God and fully man Christ exemplifies and makes known the things of the Father. He is the medium by which man approaches God and recognizing His place in the Bible is fundamental and foundational to the teaching and application of the Bible.

The Ability to Do Theology: The Doctrine of Revelation

2009-03-08T06:30:00.000-07:00

Stemming from the Greek word, apokalupsis, revelation means God’s unveiling of Himself to mankind. In its theological use, revelation signifies the disclosure of the truth of God that would otherwise be unknown to man. Revelation includes the spectrum of unveilings as both “general” and “special.”
General revelation is the antecedent to salvation that argues that God reveals Himself through the natural, created order. Though opposed by twentieth century theologians such as Barth, the Bible demonstrates clearly God’s use of general revelation in history. Through the incessant, wordless, global revelation of nature (Psalm 19:1-6), the natural order of cause and effect (Matt. 5:45), or the intuitional knowledge of man about God (Rom. 2:14-15), God has imprinted Himself upon Creation for the purpose of making His existence known. Historically, general revelation (or natural theology) has been an accepted, and at times heavily utilized, tool in theological studies. Whether in Aquinas’ Five Ways or Calvin’s Institutes, the doctrine of general revelation plays a central role in the foundation of the doctrine of revelation.
Yet, because of the Fall, general revelation is insufficient for fully knowing God or for salvation. Special revelation, therefore, regards the Scriptures and their testimony to God. Whereas general revelation includes man’s inherent knowledge of God, special revelation strictly comes from outside of man, or solely from the mouth of God. Scripture testifies to God’s speaking to man (Ex. 20:1, Deut. 29:1, Deut. 31:24, Gal. 1:11-12). As aforementioned, due to humanity’s state of corruption and sinfulness, special revelation is essential for God’s revelation of salvation and reconciliation. Special revelation, therefore, centers on the person of Jesus Christ, who is the pinnacle of all revelation. Both Christ’s words (John 6:63) and works (John 5:36) demonstrate His revelation of the Father as His person manifests the “radiance” of God (Heb. 1:3).
Three important designations are to be made about Scripture as the special revelation of God. First, God inspires the Scriptures. Since only God can specially reveal Himself, and the Bible is that revelation, the Scriptures must in turn be inspired directly of and by God. Inspiration thus guards and guarantees the accuracy of the revelation. Inspiration may be defined as the Holy Spirit’s superintending over the writers of Scripture, employing their unique personalities and styles, to create the authoritative, trustworthy Word of God. The doctrine of inspiration derives from two key texts, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21. From these passages, inspiration is rightly understood as from God the Holy Spirit (the divine element) through human authors who wrote according to their individual personalities (the human element) to create the specific and intentional selection of words and overall message found in the original manuscripts of Scripture. This view is often defined as the verbal plenary view of inspiration as is widely attested to by Christ (Matt. 5:17-18; 21:42, Luke 24:44, John 14:26).
The Scriptures, as the special revelation of God, are also completely inerrant. This doctrine teaches that Scripture is without error or fault from its statements on salvation, God’s acts in creation, or historical events. Inerrancy does not mean that Scripture always reports verbatim on events or gives precise, scientific measurements or statements. Rather inerrancy details that accounts are in accord with things as they occurred and then recorded for the purposes of the author. Furthermore, in defining inerrancy, it is important to note the emphasis on the original texts. Whereas English translations may sometimes seem confusing or grammatically incorrect, inerrancy affirms only the original Hebrew and Greek texts. From Tertullian and Augustine in the Patristic era, through medieval theologians such as Aquinas and Anselm, the Church historically has clearly affirmed the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Such a view was without controversy throughout the majority of church history, gaining monumental articulation during the Reformation in the works Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.
Finally, special revelation through the Scriptures entails the doctrine of illumination. Once the text was written and recorded, the work of the Holy Spirit was not finished. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it further necessitates the aid of the Spirit in its understanding (1 Cor. 2:11). Illumination can thus be defined as the work of the Spirit by which He enables and enlightens believers to comprehend the written Word of God. This can occur only because the Spirit both inspired the writing of Scripture as well as indwells believers at the moment of salvation (1 Cor. 2:9-13). Christ specifically outlined this ministry of the Spirit the night before His crucifixion (John 14:26; 16:13-14).
The doctrine of revelation encompasses every aspect of God’s unveiling of Himself. Each member of the Triune God plays an equally important role in revelation just as they did in the Creation account of Genesis 1. As ministers of the Gospel, it is crucial that only what God has revealed about Himself is taught. This entails that Scripture is always rightly interpreted using Biblical principles of hermeneutics. Only as a believer approaches Scripture with a proper reverence for its Godly transmission might each gain a correct insight into the revelation of God.

The Necessity of Theology: Personal

2009-03-07T06:30:00.000-08:00

Theology bears great weight and necessity in the lives of believers personally. Individually, all people are held accountable before God (Rom. 1:20). Theology, therefore, is the study that enables an individual to know God personally and walk closer with Him daily. The study of Scripture further proves vital in the maturation of Christians. Paul writes that its study is foundational to Christian maturity (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The second half of the book of Ephesians (ch. 4-6) is dedicated to the application of theology in Christian life. Furthermore, just as sound doctrine ensures the health and vitality of a church, the study of theology protects individual believers from error and digression (1 John 4:1; Jude 4).
These five designations of the past three days demonstrate the expansive and particular necessities of Christian theology. Without its faithful study and application, the Church ceases to function as the Church. From the individual believer’s daily walk to the global expanse and mission of the Church, theology naturally emanates from Scripture and empowers the work of the Spirit in God’s people. We are often so tempted to find the simplest, easiest explanations to answer life's tough questions. Unfortunately, rarely is the simplest answer the correct one (take that, Occam!). When asked, 'why does evil exist?', we quickly respond that God will accomplish some better good out of it. When the scenario of the Amazonian tribe who will never hear the name of Christ is brought up, we propose that God will save those who believed in His existence and adhered to basic principles of morality. Rarely, in either of these situations (as for many others as well) do we ask, "is my view justified by Scripture?"
Personally, as I have studied God's revelation of Himself to us more and more I have found that many of my answers to the hard questions have not been very theologically sound. The good news is that I do not have to continue believing false precepts. The bad news is that the process of theology, which yields the truth of God, is not a quick, simple process. While the Scriptures are clear, theology can be very difficult. Often I feel like Charlotte on LOST with a chronic headache and a terrible nose-bleed. But God blesses our pursuit of Him and provides the path for us. Over the next two days I'd like to develop this idea and show how theology is possible, because of God's revelation of Himself. Tomorrow, I will take a doctrinal survey of revelation, whereas Monday I will step back a bit and look at God's Word from a more general perspective. The two walk hand-in-hand so I hope you'll join me.

The Necessity of Theology: Ecclesiological and Evangelical

2009-03-06T06:30:00.000-08:00

Sound theology ensures healthy churches, as well. God’s people throughout the narrative of Scripture were defined by their knowledge of Him. The final sermons of Moses, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy, develop at great length (and repetition) the importance of God’s law and revelation in the corporate life of His people. The people of God are to serve God according to His precepts (Deut. 10:12), to be transformed in their hearts by their knowledge of Him (Deut. 10:16), and to faithfully obey all He commands (Deut. 11:22-23, 27-28). Furthermore, Scripture reveals the knowledge of God is not far off from His people, but readily given and accessible to them (Deut. 30:14). In the New Testament the Church becomes the guardian and keeper of God’s revelation of Himself, as made perfectly evident and manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul writes that through Christ the mystery of God has been revealed to the Church to be partakers of the promise in Christ (Eph. 3:3-6). Theology enables to the Church to have clear and authoritative understanding about the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith and the God of the Bible.
The evangelical purposes of the Church prove beyond reach without a proper regard and emphasis on theology. First, the study of theology makes known the mission of the Church in the world. Matt. 28:18-20 articulates the Church’s calling to make disciples in the entire world on the foundation of Christ’s authority and teachings. Further, Paul writes that the Church is charged with the responsibility to make the mystery of God and the Gospel known throughout the world (Eph. 3:10). These passages demonstrate both the responsibility of the Church as well as the foundation and message of its task. Second, the ability to fulfill its mission effectively and widely is in direct proportion to the soundness of the church’s doctrine. Christian theology enables the Church to proclaim accurately the Gospel of Christ as well as defend its beliefs rationally against opponents of the faith. Historically, the Church has relied on theology against heretics and antagonists to ensure the Biblical soundness of new churches and believers.

The Necessity of Theology: Revelation and Doxology

2009-03-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

The necessity of Christian theology is five-fold: revelational, doxological, ecclesial, personal, and evangelical. Each component highlights the unique way theology reinforces the character and nature of Christianity. While its study can often tempt the believer to become puffed up with a sense of all-encompassing knowledge of God and the world, the true purpose of theology focuses on the journey of coming to know God better and better daily in the particular ways, which He has chosen to make Himself known to man, His created image bearer.
In the formation of man in the Garden, God charged Adam and Eve to obey Him and His commands (Gen. 2:16-17). After the Fall, God continued to pass on commands to His people for the purpose of their wellbeing and reconciliation with Him. Theology is a study of God’s precepts and statutes, defining and expositing His instructions for the purpose of obedience. Because God has revealed Himself, both generally (Rom. 1) and specifically (Exod. 3:6), man must study His ways to better obey Him.
Uniquely, the study of theology serves as worship of the God around whom the discipline centers. To respond to God’s self-revelation by our study demonstrates our devotion and allegiance to Him and to His truth alone. Psalm 48 illustrates the poetics and worship of God, which emanates from meditating on His precepts and nature. Moreover, Psalms 1 and 2 demonstrate how man’s worship of God is related in direct proportion to his growing knowledge of Him.

The Conclusions of Aquinas on Naming God

2009-03-04T09:21:00.001-08:00

We begin to see now what exactly Thomas took issue with in this Platonist way of thought. St. Augustine writes in his Confessions the closer he drew to God and more learned and God-fearing he became, the less he truly knew about God. He opens his Confessions with a series of questions concerning the nature of God and how one can know Him and call on Him. Though filled with God and His Spirit as a result of his conversion and faith, Augustine was still as far from truly comprehending God’s nature as when he first begun. Naming God and fundamental belief in God, thus, is a humbling experience marked by faith not by philosophy.
This kind of abstract notion of faith and the Christian conversion and walk is exactly what Thomas finds fault in with Platonism and why he thus devotes his line of thinking to the Aristotelian method. Thomas walks the line between the two fields of empirical philosophy and theology believing that this delicate balance will be a powerful tool in inspiring faith. Yet his work does not compel the reader to profound faith, otherwise there would be no debate about religion or who God is and whether He exists or not. Whereas Thomas sets out to develop a balance of philosophy and theology to further the Christian faith, he ultimately does neither very well in his treatment on the existence of God. His philosophy works within itself, yet cannot be taken to be an open and unbiased philosophical investigation into the question of God, and his theology falls short of fundamental Biblical accounts, placing a greater emphasis on demonstrating God with the mind rather than an earnest search for God with the heart.