I am the product of a sub-emerging evangelical theological conversation which recognizes the validity of both the postmodern and modern ethos.

Go ahead, label me!

But read me first.

Those who are like me find themselves in an ocean of hope and despair holding on to two anchors at once. The modern anchor sinks because of its reliance on absolute certainty in all things. The postmodern anchor sinks because of its lack of certainty about anything. We hope to keep both anchors from setting so that theological progression can continue, all the while trying to keep themselves from going down with either (which is not easy).

You might be a like me if . . .

1. You don’t take yourself too seriously.
2. You do take Christ very seriously.
3. When you are around modernists, you become postmodern.
4. When you are around postmodernists, you become modern.
5. You love to hate the emerging church.
6. You hate to love the emerging church.
7. You don’t have everything figured out.
8. (But you do have a lot figured out).
9. You complain about how much complaining there is in the church.
10. You divide with people because they are too divisive.
11. Yet you think Calvinism is just a mature spelling for G-O-S-P-E-L.
12. You have John Piper, Team Pyro, and Justin Taylor along with Scot Mcknight, Dan Kimball, and Andrew Jones in your RSS feed . . . and you like them all!
13. You believe that the essentials of Christianity have to do with the person and work of Jesus Christ.
14. You will fight like a dog for non-essentials and your heart rate is not affected. 
15. You have been though The Theology Program and you survived.
16. Your least favorite theological subjects are eschatology (end times) and creation/evolution because everyone thinks they have all the details of the past and future figured out when you cannot even figure out the details of the present
17. Oh, and one last thing: You cut your own hair and often have the guard fall off only to discover that you have shaved yourself bald. Yet you stubbornly continue cut your own hair so to your wife’s chagrin.

Score yourself. How many did you identify with?

If you identified with all 17=ontological unity (you are me, I am you)

If you identified with 15 to 17=we were separated at birth

If you identified with 13 to 14=good friends

If you identified with 10 to 12=call me sometime

If you identified with 7 to 9=I will call you sometime

If you identified with 4 to 5=we can just email

If you identified with 1 to 3=but you cannot have my email

If you identified with 0=let’s just have a postmortem relationship, eh?

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

A few items:

Parchment and Pen: One Year Later
It has been one year (give or take) since I started the Parchment and Pen blog. Many people said “Don’t do it!” It will eat up your time. They were certainly right; It does eat up a lot of time. But I think that it has been worth it. Blogs are odd. It is a scary thing to put yourself out in the public in such a way. Sometimes you say to yourself “Why did I hit publish.” For compulsive personalities like me, blogs are dangerous. Nevertheless, when at their best, there are not many better ways of communication. Special thanks to Michael Spencer for all his support. I am not sure we would have the audience we do without him.

To all our readers: Thank you.

My Mother
I have not given much of an update on mom recently. I guess that it is one of those things that may come across as pouting, and I don’t want it to be seen as such. Mom is still the same. Two years after the stroke (this month—can you believe it has been so long?) she still can’t really speak, no walking, and has the mentality of a 5 year old at 58 (at least it seems that way most of the time).

Since she is too young to get the financial assistance for a nursing home, we divide the time between me and my sisters. That is why I moved here in Oct. I spend Fridays with her. It is “my day.” It is not really, as of yet, a burden. I enjoy spending time with her and my sister. We go to Old School Bagel in Okla City EVERY Friday at 1pm. (If you are in town, come by and see us. We sit at the booth.)

Dad is bad, but that is just dad. He needs to get mom in a nursing home, but he will still not accept this. He would have to sell his house and change his way of living in order to afford it. He won’t. Mainly he is just in denial. I don’t blame him, but I am hard on him about it. He will not listen. Hence, all of our backs are out and getting worse. Mom has gained a lot of weight. She is hard to lift and it is awkward trying to get her to the bathroom. Kristie, my sister, was rolling her down the road in the wheel chair today and my mother’s coat got caught in the chair. They were going down a hill very fast and the wheels stopped and my mother went flying out. She is OK, but my sister has cried all day about it. Sigh…

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
We sent out a plea last week for support for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. The response was incredible. We made up our dept in one week. This puts me in a better mood. My wife is relieved, although I have learned to keep most financial stuff to myself.Â

RMM has been incorporated for two years now and I have yet to miss a payday….well, completely miss. Thank you all much for contributing. It is hard being in a ministry such as this, but I am really learning about how the Lord works—slowly, but faithfully.

I started teaching this week at Crossings Community Church. What a great group of people. I think I scared them, but hopefully in a good way. I think I scare everyone at first. The first class of Introduction to Theology is scary, but that is another story.

The Theology Program is expanding into many more churches. Our biggest problem, if you want to think of it this way, is how to moderate the growth. Rhome spends most of his time dealing with other churches, while I am the wild-eyed visionary that has 12 new ideas a week. We consider .05 of them. Buggers. (Oh, and “Buggers” is my new word).

Personal odds and ends:

• I think I love the Lord more this week than last. I hope. I sure have been talking with him a lot.
• I drink one of those Starbucks bottled coffees each day. My daughters love them. They are supposed to be able to get one every Friday for rewards for doing their chores WITHOUT BEING TOLD. They have not achieved this goal yet. I usually give in as Kristie serves as their advocate.
• We are all obsessed with American Idol around here. We talk about it every Friday over bagels. Me, my wife, and my two sisters all think Michael …. Something (can’t remember his last name—from Australia) should win, but that other guy Whatshisname that sang Billy Jean was awesome last week.
• Connection Gate, our online communications program, is due out in the next couple of months. We will see.
• Let me see if I can get some recent pics of the family.

Ok, here are the most recent pics of all of my kids:

Katelynn (8 years old), by first daughter and her dog Muffin.

Will (4 years old), my first son.

And finally, Zach (1 year old), my second son.

That covers it.

One more thing. Considering my obsession with super heroes, I could not resist.

I thought that this was supposed to be secret?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Leadership is a hot topic today. Colleges and universities and seminaries and churches and Christian organizations of all varieties are developing leadership programs. I cite my own denomination, the Christian Reformed Church. To celebrate its 150th anniversary, it is raising millions of dollars to launch a leadership institute. My alma mater Baylor University has recently established a school of leadership. The list goes on and on.

I myself jumped on the bandwagon several years ago when I proposed a course on leadership at Calvin Seminary where I was teaching. I would approach the topic from a biblical, historical, and biographical perspectives; seeking to identify role models. It was not until I was teaching through the course a second time that I realized what a crock this whole topic is. It’s phony from beginning to end especially as it relates to biblical models.

That Jesus was a failed leader both by example and by teaching is something we already know at least unconsciously. Jesus taught that the first shall be last; take up your cross and follow me; to be a minister or to be great in the eyes of God is to be a servant. His teaching on leadership was upside-down and backwards. Indeed, it was no leadership teaching at all. We all know that, but we easily try to fix Jesus’ teachings or put the prefix servant in front of the word leadership. But the effort falls short.

It falls short because with Jesus we get a lot more than theory. He modeled his teachings. He was a servant, to be sure. But he was not, I argue, a servant leader.

First, let me seek to define leader or leadership. I’m not breaking any new ground here. I look to others. Malcolm Forbes offers the most basic stock definition: "No one™s a leader if there are no followers.†Peter Drucker agrees: “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.â€

Others have emphasized influence. But we all know there are many people of influence – scientists, authors, musicians – who have great influence but are not leaders in any sense of the term. The dictionary examples of a leader are typically conductor, guide, and military officer.

Let’s look at Jesus within the framework of this definition and these examples.

True, Jesus had 12 disciples who were followers. But 12 is a low number by leadership standards, and the followers were fickle at best. One betrayed, one denied, one doubted, the rest hid out. None of the followers have a profile that a conductor, a guide, or military officer would put up with.

As for the leader, Jesus is executed in his early thirties. Not exactly a demonstration of leadership success.

This model of leader/followers is hardly one that would serve today’s leadership seminars. Something is dramatically wrong with the picture. Plain and simple, Jesus was a failed leader though it’s critical to point out that Jesus did not aspire to leadership.

But Jesus has become the ultimate model for many Christian leadership gurus today. Books and websites abound. The Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Today’s Leaders by Bob Briner and Ray Pritchard is just one example. Of hundreds of websites one is "58 leadership secrets of Jesus."

Both the secular world and the Christian community have drifted far off course on the matter of leadership. That is the subject of my soon-to-be published book: Leadership Reconsidered. My emphasis in that book is not merely the wrong-headedness of leadership training, but the right emphasis that must take its place that of legacy.

The heart of the gospel and how it relates to us is not that we should follow Jesus who shows us a pattern for leadership. Indeed, leaders are as fickle as are followers. News stories of political and business and religions leaders feature that profile every day of the week. A leader’s star rises as quickly as it falls.

Legacy is what matters. Obviously no one will every match Jesus in the realm of legacy. But as we contemplate our pilgrimage in life, we must get over the self-serving concept of leadership and set our hearts and minds on legacy.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

According to N.T. Wright, justification is a subset of election, which, in turn, is an issue of ecclesiology. Justification therefore is intrinsically tied to being a part of the covenant community. Jews were by definition part of this community and, because of this, they were justified de facto. In Wright’s understanding, the Jews of Paul’s day, including Paul himself, were not seeking to justify themselves by their own works, but to remain a part of the covenant community. Therefore, the traditional Augustinian/Reformed view of justification by works vs. justification by faith is not what is a issue with Paul. In other words, the Jews never believed that they were justified by works. Wright believes that justification = “To be declared righteous due to initiation into the covenant community,” not “To be de righteous do to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”

Piper argues that such a definition cannot bear the weight of the New Testament text, especially Paul. Using Romans 3 and 4, Piper demonstrates that justification is not a recognition of a status with in a covenant community, but a declaration of a position before God. Piper notes, “. . . [J]ustification does not denote or mean covenant membership, but it does imply covenant membership” (p. 44).

This leads to a further review of Wright’s understanding of Justification in Chapter three. Here Piper gets to the heart of the issue admitting that the nuances of the covenant community definition of justification are not as serious, but provide a framework for Wright’s understanding of ultimate justification being yet future.

This eschatological view of justification departs from the traditional forensic view in that justification is not something that people acquire when they trust in Christ, but that which people may acquire during judgment. The vindication of God does not come at the cross, but during the final judgment. While the judgment came at the cross, those who place their faith in Christ will not be ultimately justified until the end. This justification provides us with a status, but not a reality of being righteous as God is righteous. This is in distinction to the traditional Protestant understanding of imputation, where Christ’s righteousness is declared to be ours immediately upon faith in Christ.

Piper defends the traditional view of imputation by posing that Wright fails to see righteousness not only in terms of what God does, but who God is (p. 63). Piper defines God’s righteousness as “his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory.” This righteousness is given to us through imputation.

I agree with Piper. While I appreciate the questions that Wright brings to the table, it seems that he fails to understand the theological implications that are tied to the doctrine of imputation. Imputation has necessary connections to Christ’s role as the second Adam. Our identification with the first Adam is actual and forensic at the same time. We are born sinful with respect to our nature and have been declared guilty because the human race, in Adam, has been declared guilty, and we are part of that race. In this sense, we are hidden in the first Adam’s unrighteousness. Call this imputation, call it identification, call it headship, call it whatever seems best (terminology is not something I would die for), but we must understand how we are connected to Adam outside of Christ. We are found “in Adam” without justification.

Romans 5 is certainly not about our identification with a covenanted community, but with a representative head. This is where I really don’t understand why Wright parts ways with the doctrine of imputation. Christ, as the second Adam, serves as our new representative head. I guess one could say that Christ is the covenanted community just as was Adam, but this would just be semantics and would fail to sufficiently recognize the differences.

Whatever the Jews believed at the time, Paul sought to correct this by showing that the headship of Adam was the problem not only of the Jews, but the entire human race. Death was a result of the sin of Adam. Righteousness and life is the result of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race, so is Christ’s righteousness imputed to all who believe, in the same way. That is the key. If it is not the same way, then Paul’s argument of Romans 5 makes no sense.

Since Christ is the second Adam, we must be found “in Him” by a legal forensic declaration. While we don’t have a righteousness that is our own, we have been declared righteous (justified), through the imputation of an alien righteousness. Without this imputation, we would forever be identified with the first Adam and, hence, his sin, resulting in death.

In this, the imputation is both a biblical and theological necessity.

I don’t think we have misread Paul, even if our understanding of this is not perfect. I think that their is a sense which we can talk about “future justification” as a final vindication of the forensic justification that has already taken place.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Is the Roman Catholic Church unorthodox?  

From the perspective of a Protestant understanding of “orthodoxy,” relations to other traditions can vary. Protestants can be found who believe that any deviation from the developments and articulations found in the Reformation, particularly with regard to justification by faith alone, amounts to abandoning the Gospel completely.

The question is this: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

If a denial of sola fide produces a different Gospel in an absolute sense, then it is, by definition, unorthodox in the most severe way. However, if it deviates from the Gospel causing a distortion of the Gospel, but not a destruction of the Gospel, can it be said to be unorthodox to the degree that the Catholic church is a heretical institution?

Please understand, the question is not whether someone can deny sola fide and be saved. Most Evangelicals would (should?) agree that we are saved by faith alone, not necessarily by our belief or confession in salvation by faith alone.

The question is Can the true Gospel be proclaimed when sola fide is denied or ignored? Is sola fide so central to the Gospel that its neglect or denial amounts to a heterodox Gospel?

Those who answer in the affirmative are going to have to recognize the difficulties with such a stand. If the absence of sola fide from the Gospel represents an absolute destruction of the Gospel, what of the church before the Reformation that had yet to articulate salvation in such a way? I know that Thomas Oden has done much to show that the early church did hold to an unarticulated view of sola fide, and I think he has done a good job of showing that this problem is not as severe as some people make it out to be (see Oden, The Justification Reader). Yet, at the same time, it is hard for me to read through the early church and see this without definite qualifications. We need to recognize that the pre-reformation church, even the pre-Roman Catholic church, did hold to beliefs that would be outside of the orthodoxy produced by a Reformed view of sola fide. For example, the early church held to a primitive belief in baptismal regeneration. As well, we often find the blurring of the lines between justification and sanctification.

Therefore, if we were to say that the Reformation’s restoration, development, and articulation of justification by faith alone was a restoration of that which was completely corrupt beforehand, we will have some issues.

Was the Gospel proclaimed in the sixteenth century for the first time?

Did true and full orthodoxy begin in the mind of Luther? 

I think that there is a more reasonable option here. This option follows the idea of progressive orthodoxy that we have talked about in previous posts. It allows for corruption of orthodoxy, to some degree, as corruption is a vital part of its evolution to maturity.

Here is the chart from the last post:

Let me now advance my thesis a bit.

With regards to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, I would see the orthodoxy produced as a distorted orthodoxy. This distortion, while serious, does not amount to an absolute departure from Christianity. In other words, the Gospel can still be found in Roman Catholic orthodoxy, even if the “fullness of the Gospel” is lacking.

Their development (along with that of the Eastern Church) may look like this (please don’t try to dissect all the letters and such; that would be over-analyzing my intentions):

Notice a few things:

Early Church: The early church was orthodox. Some doctrines were developed, matured, and articulated more than others. This is the difference in the capital letters and lower case. Capital represents maturity (e.g. the work of Christ). Lower case represents an orthodox belief, even if it remained immature. The italics represents distorted orthodoxy. In other words, there were certain beliefs in the early church that had the essence of truth, but, because of immaturity, could often misrepresent its later matured form (e.g. the atonement as a ransom to Satan).

Eastern Church: Here, I primarily mean the Eastern Orthodox church. Notice that they are also orthodox. The further developments represented by the “TH” show the progress and maturing of certain doctrines (e.g. person of Christ and the Trinity). The lower case show an undeveloped doctrine (e.g. salvation) and the italics show a distorted understanding (e.g. atonement).

Roman Catholic: Notice here, the difference. Now we have a misspelling of “orthodox.” This represents the additions that the Roman Catholic church brought to the table that, from a Protestant perspective, distorts the Gospel in a more severe way. These additions might include the infallibility of the Pope, Marian dogmas, additions of ”mortal” sins, and, a definite articulation of process justification along with an absolute denial of sola fide. The distortions would include sacredotalism, depository of grace, the institutionalized church, and the like. But, as you can see, much of Christian orthodoxy remains in tact in Roman Catholicism. So much, in fact, that from my perspective, it would be wrong to call them “unorthodox” in an absolute sense. They just have a distorted orthodoxy that, when read, can still be seen as orthodox.

Reformed Protestantism: Obviously you will see I believe that Protestantism has the best articulation of orthodoxy, even if it remains imperfect. There are definitely some distortions (possibly ecclesiology) and some areas that need development (we must always leave room for such). But in the end, I believe that this represents the fullest representation of orthodoxy and, hence, the Gospel message.

Back to the question: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

The answer is yes and no. “Yes” in that it amounts to the production of a distorted or undeveloped Gospel, and, in this sense, it is different from the fullness of the Gospel (like that of the Galatian Judizers). “No” in the sense that its denial does not completely destroy the Gospel beyond recognition. For example, I believe that the Mormons have a different Gospel to the degree that orthodoxy is destroyed beyond recognition. If they were on the chart, their orthodoxy would look something like this: “XXoMOXY.” It may have some of the same elements, but it is too different and too distorted to find the truth Gospel (primarily because of the absence of the God-man). The same could be said for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Catholics are different. I don’t believe that Catholics are orthodox to the degree that Protestants or Eastern Orthodox are, but, nonetheless, orthodoxy can be found in their Gospel. They do have the God-man and this means a lot.

Once again, you must remember, this is looking at these things from an Evangelical Protestant perspective. I am an Evangelical Protestant. So don’t give me any cries of “Arrogance!” I don’t believe Evangelicals are perfect, but I do believe we have the fullest articulation of the Gospel. If I did not, then I would go to the tradition that did!

At least, this is where I am at today.

Hopefully, you can now see how my understanding of how progressive orthodoxy can account for the development of doctrine in the face of many difficulties.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Here is an ALR New Release about the CSNTM find:

DALLAS, March 25, 2008 - Normally, two or three New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek are discovered each year.

Last summer, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) found a treasure trove of them during a trip to Albania. The Center, based in the Dallas suburb of Frisco, Texas, devotes itself to the high-resolution digital preservation of these early copies of the New Testament.

Scholars tried for decades to gain access to the National Archive in Tirana with little success, partly because Albania is a former police state. Until now, only two manuscripts of the 13 there known to Western scholars had been photographed, both with microfilm many years ago.

Recently though, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the CSNTM director, received permission to send a team of four men to Albania to photograph the manuscripts with state-of-the-art digital methods. By the end of their first day in Tirana in July, they realized there were more than 13 manuscripts - far more.

"When the news came back across the Atlantic, I was stunned," Wallace said.

The catalog at the National Archive listed 47 New Testament manuscripts, and at least 17 were unknown to Western scholars. Evidence suggests that some of the other manuscripts had been presumed lost elsewhere in Albania, but no final determination has been made.

The oldest manuscript in the collection is Codex Beratinus, written in the sixth century. It contains only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark today.

The codex is the ancestor of the modern book form, replacing the scrolls and wax tablets of earlier times. Early Christians popularized the codex, adopting it for their scriptures and other writings.

Codex Beratinus was dyed in purple; only a handful of purple biblical codices exist today — with silver and gold letters on it.

The staff at the National Archives said that during World War II, Hitler tried to obtain this particular document. Several monks and priests risked their lives to hide the manuscript. Today, it is registered with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a world treasure.

Among the other notable finds were four manuscripts, dating from the 11th century on, that provided more information on a familiar Biblical controversy. The story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is included in most Bibles today, but many scholars doubt its authenticity. These four manuscripts either have the story at the end of John or lack it altogether, suggesting it is something of an add-on.

Wallace says that no basic teaching of the Bible such things as the virgin birth and the deity of Christ — has been compromised by such study but that some of the particulars have been brought into question.

When studying these manuscripts, the age is important, but so is the pedigree (which previous manuscript it was copied from.) Experts like Wallace, also a Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, strive to trace the antecedents of a Biblical manuscript much like an expert in genealogy would reconstruct a family tree.

It’s a daunting task.

"It is like working on a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing," Wallace said. "But with the discovery of new manuscripts, more of the pieces make sense. And the result is we are getting closer to reconstructing the original wording of the New Testament in the few places where there still is question."

Wallace has personally examined manuscripts at the base of Mount Sinai in Egypt; The Vatican; Cambridge University, Oxford University and the British Library in England; Dresden, Cologne and Berlin in Germany; and Florence, Italy, along with several other sites in the United States and abroad .

In its five years of existence, CSNTM has photographed manuscripts in, among other places, Istanbul, Turkey; Patmos, Greece and Muenster, Germany at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. The Institute is the clearinghouse for original manuscripts. When a “new†manuscript comes to light, it is assigned a unique number certifying the discovery. To date, some 5,700 manuscripts containing about 1.3 million pages have been catalogued.

Photographing these manuscripts is painstaking work. Wallace says that the average Greek New Testament manuscript has about 550 pages. Optimally, a team can shoot 1,200 to 1,800 pages a day, depending on the size and condition of the manuscripts. Members of the team take extraordinary measures, including wearing white cotton gloves, not to damage the manuscripts.

The bill is high — $6 to $7 a page, when all the expenses are figured in and the task is Herculean. Wallace, not one to set his sights low, wants to photograph all 1.3 million pages of manuscripts known to scholars.

"We’ve photographed several thousand pages, but it’s just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done,"he said. "These manuscripts are deteriorating, and older photographs done on microfilm, a much poorer quality than what we can do today, are deteriorating as well.

"Plus, some manuscripts are lost or stolen, and others are damaged by fire, worms or water. So there is a sense of urgency about this. We have to get these photographed while we have the opportunity."

For more information on the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, visit www.csntm.org.

Note to editors: For more information or to schedule an interview with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, contact Steve Yount of A. Larry Ross Communications at 972.267.1111 or steve@alarryross.com.

For more details, go here.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In my last post on hyper-Preterism, I pondered whether hyper-Preterism is a false Gospel. This post is simply meant to be an interlude as to where I presently stand.

As I may have said before, I have had very little contact with hyper-Preterism. I don’t even know anyone personally who believes such. In a lot of ways, the arguments remind me of flat-earth arguments. As Simon Cowell would say, “Sorry.” From a theological standpoint they seem to be very unsophisticated and short-sighted, without a broad knowledge of theological inquiry. It would seem that they take a few problem issues and suppose “simple” solutions that create many more serious problems that seem to escape their notice. Because of its viability, biblically and historically, I did not even include it in the course on eschatology in The Theology Program. (Plus, I ran out of room.)

I understand that some of people who have responded to my last post are hyper-Preterists and I do appreciate their contribution here as well as the tone they have brought. Please forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you who are hyper-Preterists, I don’t mean to (I am sure you get it a lot). But try as I may to understand and find some degree of legitimacy in your theology, I can’t.

I am still not ready to say that it is damnable, but it seems to me to be an extremely serious departure from some essential elements in the Gospel. No matter how one defines orthodoxy, I cannot find a place for the eschatology of the hyper-Preterist. It is about as far as one can deviate from the beaten path.

You must understand where I come from. I make my living at trying to see the other side of theological issues. People who know me know this. So please don’t see me as simply brushing this option off because I feel uncomfortable with it or am so steeped in my tradition that I am unable to consider it. I by no means claim that I can be completely objective, but I do a pretty good job of training my bias to be my slave. It is one thing that I am really good at.

I will continue to examine this in the future, but have yet to find anyone who is balanced and a hyper-Preterist. When too much passion is thrown in the direction of pushing some eschatological issue—whether dispensational, preterist, or otherwise—red flags go up all over. Perspective must be maintained. If someone were to say, “This is what I believe (i.e. hyper-Preterism), but I very well might be wrong and I am not sure about this issue, it is just where I lean,” then I could take them more seriously. I would see that they recognize the enormous problems created by this system and in this recognition display intellectual honesty. I have yet to find this in the hyper-Preterist camp. What I have seen are booths at ETS giving away hyper-Preterist material saying everyone has wrong eschatology but them. I have seen books and websites that seem to think they have solved all the problems in biblical eschatology with a very simplistic answer. I have seen those who arrogantly and confidently dismiss the body of Christ’s consensual agreement about the future coming of Christ. They do this without fear saying, “We have it all figured out…it is so simple, there is no future resurrection!”

Buggers. How did we all get it so wrong?

To claim, as some often do,the legacy of the Reformers would be a serious misunderstanding of doctrinal development and the issues of the Reformation. The hyper-Preterist option to reform eschatology is not in any way parallel to what the Reformers brought to the table with regards to the doctrines of justification or authority. The Reformers did not produce an antithetical option of a historically established doctrine in either case. They had a great fear of introducing something new or outside of established orthodoxy. What they said was that the instrumental cause of justification, faith, was being blurred by works. They sought to reform this doctrine. As well, they believed that the authority of Scripture was being usurped by the institutional church. They sought to reform this as well. In both cases, their reform, agree with it or not, was not antithetical to any historically established truths. It was a correction, not a new creation.

Hyper-Preterism, on the other hand, is different. Not only does it create more serious biblical problems than it solves, but it produces a completely new eschatology that somehow has escaped the notice of the Church for 2000 years. It is not viable with any view history and the providential care of God over his Church. With this view of history, the Gospel that is produced must draw from the restorationist philosophy of the Jehovah’s Witness’ or Mormons. It says that the Church—Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic, indeed, everyone—have the Gospel wrong with regard to our future hope. The redemption of all things, the coming of Christ, judgment, resurrection, and the new heavens and earth is a past or present reality. We have a new Gospel for you. It is based in Scripture.

Sure it is. I challenge you to find one heresy that does not make such a claim.

In the end, I am still wrestling with to what degree this affects the Gospel. Either way, I do believe that hyper-Preterism corrupts the Gospel seriously, I just don’t know whether it produces a different Gospel to the degree of other “Christian” cults.

God help us to deal with such issues wisely.

P.S. Different issue: Do you think this type of posts will get the anti-Emergents off my back? . . . nah . . . I will get under their skin again later.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

John Piper has proven once again that underneath his passionate commitment to exposition and inspiration, his thinking, judgment, and exegetical rigor is not clouded by emotional commitments and traditional brick walls. Piper represents that rare combination between the pastor, theologian, and exegete. His most recent work The Future of Justification is a scholarly defense of the Gospel in the wake that has left many scrambling toward the reinterpretation of justification by NT Wright and those who are mesmerized by the “New Perspective on Paul” (henceforth NPP).

Piper describes the purpose of his book: ”I hope that the mere existence of this book will the stakes in the minds of many and promote serious study and faithful preaching of the gospel, which includes the good news of justification by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16).” Piper believes that the NPP as represented by NT Write is another Gospel. Yet at the same time Piper does not assume that being justified means that one has a right view of Justification: “I do not infer Wright’s defective view of justification to mean that he is not himself justified.” I appreciate his perspective. Yet he is quick to point out the seriousness of departure from a pure representation of the Gospel.

Piper begins by giving eight dangers of Wrights NPP:

1. The Gospel Is Not about How to Get Saved
2. Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian
3. Justification Is Not the Gospel
4. We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification
5. The Imputation of God’s Own Righteousness Makes No Sense At All
6. Future Justification Is on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived
7. First-century Judaism Had Nothing of the Alleged Self-Righteous and Boastful Legalism
8. God’s Righteousness Is the Same as His Covenant Faithfulness

The successive chapters deal with each of these dangers. Before this, he give a warning about methodology seeking to address the problem of emphasizing on a particular exegetical conclusion without balancing this out systematically with the rest of Scripture. According to Piper, exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are all ultimately necessary in coming to a valid understanding of truth. Implied is a direct warning to Wright and other NPPers to move beyond their focus on cultural analysis of a particular text so that the Scriptures can speak in wholistically. He also warns against the growing tendency among scholars and lay-people alike to disregard traditional understanding in favor of novelty. While not disregarding anything new, Piper says that older establish interpretations must be allowed to glow “with similar exuberance” (p. 37).

Wright essentially believes that “discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot at least in terms of understanding Paul and they have stayed there ever since” (p. 37). In essence, Wright believes that Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have misunderstood Paul, Judaism, and Justification for the last 1500 years. Wrights courage to challenge traditional understandings with “fresh” “innovative” thought is cautioned against by Piper with an admonishment concerning out love affair with novelty: “My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright’s: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries.” He goes on, “The point here is simply to caution that his celebration of ‘delighted innovation’ may confirm a neophilia of our culture that that needs balancing with the celebration of the wisdom of the centuries precisely for the sake of faithfulness to the biblical text.”

I find this exhortation alone worth the price of the book.

Considering people’s “love affair” with the novelty (”neophilia”):

• What examples have you come across with regards to this tendency?
• How have you been tempted to be caught of in this love affair?
• Why do you think we have this tendency to be neophilites?
• What are the promises and perils of neophilia?

More to come.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In a recent episode of Theology Unplugged (solo version), I made a comment that I was challenged to reconsider through an email correspondence. My statement had to do with my position concerning the viability of full or hyper-Preterism as a Christian option. Hyper-Preterism is the belief held by some (a growing number) in the Church concerning the the end times. In essence, it is the belief of hyper-Preterists that all the prophetic events of Scripture have already been fulfilled. Christians are not waiting for the coming of Christ in any sense or the judgment. As well, the resurrection has already happened (in a spiritual sense) and we are living in the new heavens and the new earth. Once we die, our body simply goes to the grave. . . . Bummer, huh?

During this program I said that hyper-preterism is definitely unorthodox, finding its antithetical opposite affirmed from the earliest Christianity until now by all traditions of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant). All Christians have always affirmed that Christ’s return, the resurrection of the dead, judgment, and the new heavens and earth are yet future, even if we disagree about the details.

However, I also said on the program that while this doctrine is an unorthodox or heretical view of eschatology, it is not a doctrine that is damnable in the sense that if one believes it, they are, by definition, not Christian. The reason why I said this is because most hyper-Preterists would not deny the sinfulness of man, Christ’s death, burial, and physical resurrection, and our need for salvation by faith. Heck, most are even Calvinists! Therefore, in my mind, the essence of the Gospel was not at stake.

Dee Dee Warren, who often deals with these issues, wrote to me a very gracious email asking me to reconsider my position. In the email she took the time to give me a concise argument as to why she believes that hyper-Preterism is aberrant to such a degree that it destroys the very essence of the Gospel. Therefore, her position is that if one believes in hyper-Preterism—really believes in hyper-Preterism—then they don’t believe the true Gospel and, therefore, are not saved.

Having corresponded with her, I am beginning to seriously reconsider. I think she may be right and my previous postition wrong.

Dee Dee was kind enough to allow me to post her response here on the blog below. Read it. I would like your thoughts. Is the Gospel of hyper-Preterism a different Gospel to the degree that it destroys the essence of the true Gospel? That is my question for you.

(Please note: this is not simply about defining who is in and who is out, but about the content of the Gospel. It needs to be thought through.)

______________________________

“Michael,

I had listened to your audio program on orthodoxy episode 2, and though I agreed with 99% of what you said, I heard one thing that caused me enough alarm to write. In that program, you said that while hyperpreterism is heretical, it does not deny any foundational Christian beliefs; thus, its adherents are still Christians. Because this is my particular area of specialty, I couldn’t disagree more. I, like you, am very cautious in labeling some beliefs as placing one outside the faith. I, like you, hold to a progressive orthodoxy as you explained in episode 3. Therefore, I am appealing to you on the basis of our shared understanding.

Thus, the question then becomes, what are foundational Christian beliefs? I think we can all agree that the Trinity, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus’ atoning death on the cross all belong in that category. However, all of the earliest confessions of the historic church, be they in teachings or in formalized statements such as in the Apostles’ Creed, affirm the future bodily resurrection of the dead, the future bodily return of Christ, and the future final judgment. One cannot deny those things and be said to have a Christian belief system. This isn’t simply a matter of arguing about the timing of "the rapture." I would argue, that even without formally recognizing those other categories, hyperpreterism denies the Gospel itself.

I have laid out the case for this position here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengrave.html

Hyperpreterist David Green is one of the few hyperpreterists with the backbone to admit this fact. Here is what he said in a response to Keith Mathison:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

The only addition I made to that quote is the word "full." It is David himself who retracted his earlier position of "possibly damnable doctrine" to "definitely damnable doctrine." Ever since I pointed that out in 2005, David came under fire from fellow hyperpreterists for his admission. Is it a coincidence that the article in which that appeared can no longer be found? Well, thank God for the Internet Archive from 3/18/05:

see here

Read it, it is enlightening. And David is right. If he is wrong, he is teaching and believing damnable heresy. David had to do some damage control after I pointed this out, and I interacted with his further points here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41

As we discussed in our emails, Paul specifically condemned a denial of the future bodily resurrection in the strongest possible terms. In 1 Cor 15, denying the bodily resurrection of believers is tantamount to denying the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because He is the prototype, the firstfruits. If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised, for He was one of the dead, and we are still in our sins. How is that? Because Christ is the second Adam, and in hyperpreterism, the second Adam fails at redeeming all that the first Adam lost. The world stays forever in the grip of sin – there is never a consummation. Paul further instructed Timothy that Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said that the resurrection was past, were a gangrenous cancer in the body and causing the shipwreck of the faith of some. This Scripture holds true today – hyperpreterism has caused the shipwreck of faith and churches as its adherents doggedly smuggle it in. I can bring forth the testimony of elders and pastors to substantiate this (it is documented on my site).

Further a logical conclusion of hyperpreterism is that Christ is no longer our mediator. Why? Because His special messianic reign is co-extant with his mediatorial role. Once the resurrection event of 1 Cor 15 happens, Christ gives up that role and all power, authority, and dominion have been placed under His feet – conquered once and for all. Yet in hyperpreterism evil really is never conquered fully once for all – they claim it has, and thus must deny its present reality. This is worthy of Christian Science.

Please I implore you, do not give those holding this cultic teaching the false security of merely being grossly mistaken brethren, and more importantly, don’t expose the brethren to this kind of teaching under the banner of Christian fellowship. This is not Christianity.

On a side note, I had also encouraged you to adopt the terms preterism (or orthodox preterism) and hyperpreterism, for clarity and reality. I have written a piece on this as well at http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrensemantics.html. At that link is also a podcast that I recorded a few weeks ago on this issue of terminology. It is long but very precise and detailed.

I thank you so very much for your time and consideration.

Dee Dee Warren

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

My view of what I call “progressive orthodoxy” allows for maturation and development in our understanding of orthodoxy. Here is the definition I gave in the last blog:

Progressive Orthodoxy: The belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Progressive orthodoxy, like paleo-orthodoxy, seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This "maturing" does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery.

Here is how it looks so far:

The question are many at this point. Here are some of them:

• How does this “maturing” process take place? This is not an easy question to answer for every tradition will claim that their maturation is the correct one.
• Once a doctrine as “matured” does this mean that it’s mature form is the “new” orthodoxy?
• What if someone rejects the maturation in favor of its immatured form? Are they still “orthodox” in an immature sense?
• What if some person, tradition, or institution favors a form that has matured slightly differently? Are they “unorthodox”?

Let me give you some examples:

I believe in doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sole fide). This means that the sole instrumental cause of justification, from a human standpoint, is faith without the addition of any works, including baptism. But this doctrine, as such, was not fully articulated until the time of the Reformation. It was not until then, due to the controversy that arose, that the church was forced to mature in this particular aspect of soteriology (salvation). But I have a problem. The church, until this time, generally accepted some form of works-based justification, whether it be through baptismal regeneration, or the addition of some other good work.

The same thing can be said about my view of the atonement. I believe in what is called the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement. This means that I believe that Christ served as the substitute for man (or the redeemed), taking their punishment and making it his own while on the cross. Yet this doctrine only existed in seed form until the time of Anselm. Anselm, in the 11th century, introduced the church to the “satisfaction” theory of the atonement. This was more fully developed later by John Calvin. It now goes by the name “substitutionary” or “penal” atonement. What of those who did not believe such before Anselm or Calvin?

For both of these (and others), I have a few options:

1. I could say that before these doctrines were understood and articulated according to my current Protestant understanding, no one was truly saved or, at the very least, orthodox. (Radical Restorationism)

2. I could say that these doctrines did exist before, just in unarticulated form. (Oden?)

3. I could say that these doctrines did exist in the earliest church, but the church became corrupted and lost them. (Reformers)

4. I could say that their immature state was sufficient for the time, but is now insufficient. (Conservative Progressives)

5. I could say that these developments, while true, don’t really matter with regards to defining orthodoxy. (Emerging)

I am torn by some of these. The only one that I reject outright is #1. I also have some problems with #4. The rest may contain truth. In fact, the answer may lie in a combination of 2-5. It depends on the issue at hand. In other words, I don’t think any one of these comprehensively explains the maturation of orthodoxy for all issues. Some beliefs I believe were held by the early church and later corrupted (e.g. sola Scriptura). Some were just assumed without question and the lack of questioning amounted to their immaturity (e.g. baptismal regeneration). Some, once questioned, did reveal orthodoxy as it should be understood by all (sola fide). Some came into later maturation, but should not have any bearing on historic Christian orthodoxy (Calvinism, dispensationalism, rapture, etc.).

Next, I will try to chart out (you know how I love charts!) the way this would look with respect to Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox orthodoxy.

Go to Part 4

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

One of my best friends that I grew up with asked me a very hard question about God. I want to share this with you.

Let me back up first so you can see the context from which this question was sprung on me—and it was “sprung” on me. 

My friend was not a Christian, but he was seriously considering it. He was one of my wild friends that I hung with in my crazy days. I reconnected with him a few years ago. He was married with kids and so was I. After our reconnect, which involved uncomfortable retellings of our former days of sin along with some (compromising?) laughter about such, we spent the next year talking about Christ. We would talked on the phone about once a week. Often it would be for hours late into the night. The conversations usually ended when he was too drunk to talk anymore!

During these talks, he would present his objections and questions and we would discuss the possible answers. Often he would put his wife on speaker phone to ask and listen along. I sent him a couple of books that really helped him overcome some of his misleadings concerning the nature of Christianity. Primarily he saw Christianity as a legalistic set of “do’s and dont’s.” He had never even come in contact with the idea of grace. Our conversations culminated in his reading of Chuck Swindoll’s Grace Awakening (a book that every Christian should read). He was refreshed. Hurdle #1, successful.

In the backdrop of our conversations was his supposed perception that Christianity is naive and has no place for the serious intellect reasonings. We talked much about this and I sent him a copy of Letters to a Skeptic. His objections were slowly losing their hope in his retention of unbelief. It was incredible to see the slow transformation. Hurdle #2, successful.

But then he asked “the” question that I did not expect.

It was the day of my sister’s funeral. He came to my parent’s house along with many other guests. He sat by the side of the house, timidly lurking about, not really knowing what to say. When we finally talked (it was the first time that I had seen him since our reconnect), our conversation led to Christ. He mentioned my sermon at the funeral and seemed very appreciative. But there seemed to be something desperate in his thoughts, something that was personal and apologetically selfish.

“Look, Michael,” he said, as if all our conversation until this point was just a deterring prelude to something more, “I get it!”

“Get what?” I responded.

“I get it. Call me whatever you want—a believer, Christian, or whatever . . . I get it. I believe.”

Then there was some silence. I knew there was something more.

He continued, “But I am scared.”

“Scared of what,” I said. 

“You love Jesus and have been doing so much for him.,” he said. ”Yet look at what has happened to you. Look at what happened to your sister. Look at the pain of your family, especially your mom. Your mom has always been into Jesus.”

After another period of silence he asked, “Will God protect my kids?”

I did not know how to respond. I did not expect this.

“Yes, of course he will protect your kids. God did not hurt my sister. God wanted my sister to live, but she decided to take her own life. God was not in control of this.”

I almost wanted to say this, but it would not have been the truth. God was in control. God could have protected her. But he did not. My theology did not provide me with the opportunity for such an easy answer.

I finally responded, “I don’t know if God will protect your kids in the way that you desire. I really don’t. I am sorry.”

I had no guarantees for my friend. There were no prenuptial agreements that he could have had God sign. Loved ones of Christians do die. What was I supposed to say?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Christians have different presuppositions that they bring to their theology. This does not make it right or wrong, but we must understand that the unexamined presupposition is not worth having. Our view of history is no different. It is a presupposition that we bring when asking the question What does it means to be “orthodox”? (see part 1 in this series here).

There are really six primary views that I find represented in the church today. I am going to try to explain these views using both established and original terminology. I have tried to stay away from certain terms such as “neo-orthodox” and “emerging orthodox” so as not to skew perspectives and stack the deck against them.

1. aOrthodoxy. Belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy as a set of “right beliefs” or, at the very least, Christianity should not be defined by our beliefs except in a very minimalistic way. This view of orthodoxy takes a very pessimistic view of the Church’s need and ability to define truth, believing that orthopraxy (”right practice”) is the only thing that should be in focus. This pessimistic approach is influenced by the belief that defining the “boundaries” of Christianity according to beliefs has brought nothing but shame and divisiveness to Christianity. This is illustrated most in the bloodshed of the inquisition, Crusades, and wars among Christians. To be labeled “orthodox” or “unorthodox” to the aOrthodox is an arrogant power play that is oppressive to the cause of Christ. Orthodoxy, therefore, is a contextualized subjective “moving target” that cannot be defined.

Primary Adherents:

Emergent Church (to be distinguished as a subset of the Emerging Church)

Strengths:

• Sees the importance of orthopraxy.
• Understands the difficulty of defining Christian orthodoxy.

Weaknesses:

• Christianity loses any distinction.
• Follows a self-defeating premise by establishing a new minimalistic orthodoxy of its own.
• Unjustifiably follows a “guilt by association” premise. Just because others killed in the name of orthodoxy does not mean that those who seek to define orthodoxy will do the same. In fact, most have not.

2. Scriptural Orthodoxy. This is the belief that Scripture alone sets the bounds of orthodoxy without any aid from the historic body of Christ. This should not be mistaken for sola Scriptura—the belief that the Scripture is our final and only infallible authority in matters of faith and practice—but as a radical rejection of any other sources of authority such as the church, tradition, natural revelation, etc. It is often referred to as solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura. Here, there would not be any authority derived from the body of Christ, historic or contemporary, as an interpretive community that either fallibly or infallibly has the ability to define orthodoxy. Adherents would often be found saying, “No creed but the Bible.”

Primary Adherents:

Fundamentalist Protestants

Strengths:

• Understands that the Bible is the only infallible source.
• Causes people to go back to the source (ad fontes).

Weaknesses:

• Discounts the historic Church as a Spirit illuminated interpreter of the Scriptures that must be respected as a voice (albeit fallible) of God.
• Creates their own orthodoxy based upon their subjective interpretation. This way there will be many orthodoxies.
• Often results in cults who deny essential elements of Christian theology that have been held throughout church history.
• Fails to see that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

3. Paleo-Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the Christian faith can be found in the consensual beliefs of the church. This is a form of “consensual orthodoxy” (consensus fidelium). This search for consensus follows the dictum of Saint Vincent of Lérins: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always.” Normally, according to Thomas Oden, who coined the term “paleo-orthodoxy,” this consensual faith can be found in the first five centuries of the Christian church (Oden, Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements), before the “speculative scholasticism” of western Catholicism. The idea of theological progression is normally thought by strict adherents of Paleo-Orthodoxy as a post-enlightenment influenced methodology that should not be followed.

Primary Adherents:

Eastern Orthodoxy, some Evangelicals, and Emerging Christians (not Emergent as I have defined it in my writings)

Strengths:

• Looks to the historic body of Christ for orthodoxy.
• Understands that God’s providential concern for the Church would have established the most important truths early.

Weaknesses:

• Can elevate the authority of the early church above that of Scripture.
• Hard to find justifiable reasons to believe that theology cannot develop or mature beyond the first five centuries.

4. Dynamic Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy would be highly influenced by a dialectical approach to theological development, believing that orthodoxy is not in any sense static, but dynamically changing as new discoveries are being made. Early views of orthodoxy might be completely overshadowed by new discoveries. This approach has characterized the more liberal theologians, especially in the early twentieth century. Theology, according to dynamic orthodoxy, can change radically in an antithetical way once new discoveries are made through the advancements of human knowledge.

Primary Adherents:

Liberal Christianity

Strengths:

Open to change and advancement.

Weaknesses:

• Too open to change and advancement.
• Christianity loses any roots.
• Often values the credibility of human progress above the credibility of Scripture.

5. Developmental Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy is unique to Roman Catholicism, therefore, it must be understood according to the Catholic view of authority. Developmental Orthodoxy sees the fullness of Christian orthodoxy contained in the one deposit of faith given by Christ to the apostles. These Apostles handed this deposit over in two forms of tradition, written and spoken. The written tradition is found in the Scriptures, the spoken is primarily contained in the early church. This tradition is interpreted by the infallible magisterial authorities in the Roman Catholic church. Orthodoxy itself is defined progressively by this authority as situations develop throughout time. According to this theory, it is not as if orthodoxy develops ex nihilo, but only as the situations make necessary. Once orthodoxy has been defined, then Christians are responsible to believe it, even if it was previously obscure or non-existent (e.g. acceptance of the Apocrypha, assumption of Mary, rejection of birth control).

Primary Adherents:

Roman Catholics

Strengths:

• Can be more definitive about a definition of orthodoxy.
• Ability to contextualize orthodoxy.
• Sees value in church history.

Weaknesses:

• No regulation for abuse in the Magisterium.
• No justification for an authoritative system of infallibility beyond pragmatism.
• Elements of newly established orthodoxy that cannot be found in church history is hard to justify.
• Does not take a consensual approach to orthodoxy which, in the end, positions most members of the Christian faith, living and dead, as unorthodox according to their current definition.

6. Progressive Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Like paleo-orthodoxy, progressive orthodoxy seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This “maturing” does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery. In other words, once orthodoxy has been established, its antithetical opposite cannot be entertained. Orthodoxy can only be advanced.

Adherents:

Most Evangelicals, Protestant Reformers, some emergers.

Here is the chart that illustrates this view:

Weaknesses:

• Often hard to define what is the difference is between maturity and change.
• Who defines when a doctrine has “matured”?

Strengths:

• It is anchored in the Bible while having a great respect for tradition.
• Leaves the door open for the Holy Spirit to mature the church’s understanding.
• Seeks first to define orthodoxy in a consensual way.
• Leaves room to distinguish between essential elements of orthodoxy and non-essential.

Of the options given above, in my opinion the two that are the most credible are Paleo-Orthodoxy and Progressive Orthodoxy. Both are rooted in the ultimate authority of Scripture and both have a high view of God’s providential care throughout Church history. I appreciate the consensual approach which I think must be present to some degree if one is to have a proper defense of the history of the Church.

In the end, however, I do lean in the direction of the Progressive Orthodox view. I believe that all the essential doctrines of Christianity were established in the early Church, but that their maturation came throughout church history. Some, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, matured earlier than others. Because of this, we find that these enjoy a greater Christian consensus. I put a higher priority on these. Yet I also believe that we need to take seriously others which matured later, even if they do not enjoy the same consensus (i.e. sola fide—which I believe existed in seed form in the early church, but did not develop more fully until the controversy of the sixteenth century.)

The distinction between the orthodoxy established in the early church and the later developing tradition based orthodoxy must be made and reflected upon. I have argued such here.

Where do you all stand?

quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have argued in previous installments of this series that in John 10:28-30 Jesus claims to be “one†with the Father in the exercise of the divine prerogative and power of giving eternal life to the people of God and preserving them against any spiritual attack. Christ’s use of the monotheistic statement of YHWH in the Old Testament that he alone is God because no one can snatch them from his hand (Deut. 32:39; see also Is. 43:13), which Christ applies to himself and to the Father, sets us up to understand "I and the Father are one" also as an allusion to the Old Testament’s most famous monotheistic affirmation, the Shema (Deut. 6:4).

Those who deny that Jesus Christ is one God with the Father point to certain elements of the context to show that such an interpretation is mistaken. Immediately before Jesus’ famous statement in John 10:30, he states, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all (v. 29 ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET). Jesus says two things here about the Father that anti-Trinitarians often understand as implying that Jesus is not God.

First, Jesus says that the Father gave him his sheep. Why would the Father need to give the Son anything if he possesses it necessarily by virtue of his being God? This kind of question comes up repeatedly with reference to statements throughout the Gospel of John that express the Son’s dependence on the Father. The Son does what he sees the Father doing (5:19-20). The Son cannot do anything on his own, independent of the Father (5:19, 30; 8:28). The Father gives the Son life in himself (5:26) and the authority to judge (5:22, 27) and to give eternal life (17:2). The Son does the works that the Father gave him to do (5:36; 17:4). The Father gives the Son his people, his sheep (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:2, 6, 9, 24). The Son’s teaching is not his alone but is the Father’s (7:16-17). He does not speak on his own (7:17; 14:10). He speaks what he hears from the Father who sent him (8:26; 15:15), from God (8:40), what the Father instructs him (8:28), commands him (12:49), and gave him (17:8) to say. The Son’s speech is the Father dwelling in him doing his works (14:10). He did not come on his own (8:42). The Father gave his name (17:11, 12) to the Son. He gave him glory (17:22). He also gave him the cup of sacrificial death (18:11). In short, the Son is apparently dependent on the Father for everything he has, says, and does. How, then, can the Son be considered in any way equal to God?

Classically, orthodox Christians have understood these statements to reflect the dependence of the Son on the Father that characterized him in his humiliation”that stage of the Incarnation that extended from his conception to his resurrection. By becoming a human being (John 1:14), the Son humbled himself, taking a position that entailed utter dependence on the Father for everything he had, said, and did. In some sense, the Son had left behind the glory that he had alongside the Father since before creation, a glory to which he was to return following his death and resurrection (John 12:16; 17:5). (Since the risen Christ is still human, orthodox theologians regard the period following his resurrection as a second stage of the Incarnation" the stage of exaltation.) During this first phase of the Incarnation, the Son’s entire modus operandi was to glorify the Father (John 7:18; 12:28; 15:8; 17:4). Jesus therefore credited his miracles as well as his speech to the Father. Thus, even when Jesus performed acts that revealed in some way his divine glory, he did so that the Father might be glorified through and in him (John 1:14; 2:11; 11:4, 40; 13:31-32; 14:13; 17:1).

This explanation is consistent with the fact that these numerous statements in John all appear to refer to the Son’s dependence on the Father during his mortal life on earth. Although the Gospel of John explicitly teaches that the Son existed as a divine person before becoming a human being (John 1:1-3, 10; 8:58; 13:3; 16:28; 17:5), all of the references to the Son’s dependence on the Father are statements by Jesus focused on giving the Father credit for the things Jesus was saying and doing at the time.

This classical Trinitarian interpretation would therefore understand these Johannine passages in much the same way as Christians historically have understood the famous "Christ hymn" in Philippians, which says that although Christ existed in God’s form, he humbled himself as a servant, becoming a man, and dying on the cross, after which God highly exalted him above all creation (Phil. 2:6-11). As the divine Son, Christ was entitled to the recognition, honor, and glorious privilege of God (v. 6), but he humbled himself for the Father’s glory (v. 11). In that state of humiliation, Christ depended on the Father as a servant depends on his master, and was therefore dependent on the Father to exalt him (v. 9).

There is much to commend this line of thinking, and I think it is right, or at least mostly right. Some Trinitarians, however, think that a qualification is in order. They argue that it is a mistake to limit the force of all of these statements in John to the period of Christ’s humiliation. They suggest that the Son’s dependence on the Father in the Incarnation, though perhaps deepened or radicalized by his humiliation as a mortal human, should be understood as in some way revelatory of the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father. The theological maxim that expresses this view is that the economic Trinity reveals the ontological Trinity: how the incarnate Son relates to the Father in space-time reveals something of the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity. We might put it this way: the fact that the Father sent the Son into the world, rather than the other way around, is not an accident. It is not as though the three persons of the Trinity drew straws to determine who would become a man and die on the cross. There is something appropriate and fitting about the Son coming on behalf of the Father. The very titles "Father" and "Son" indicate an asymmetrical relationship between the two persons, such that it is proper and fitting that the Father sent the Son, that the Son seeks to do the will of the Father, etc., and not the other way around.

I think there is some support for this qualification to the classical view in something that Jesus in the Gospel of John says about the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:13-14). Here Jesus says that the Holy Spirit "will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears." This statement says about the Holy Spirit exactly what Jesus had earlier stated about himself: "Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own" (John 7:17). "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own" (John 14:10). "I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father" (John 15:15). Jesus also says that the Holy Spirit will glorify him (that is, glorify Jesus, the Son), rather than the Spirit glorifying himself" just as Jesus came not to glorify himself but to glorify the Father. Yet the Holy Spirit clearly does not become incarnate or otherwise experience a "humiliation" comparable to the Son becoming a human being. Thus, it may well be that the "dependence" language in John is not merely or exclusively a function of the humiliation of Jesus’ coming in the flesh, but more broadly reveals the Son as acting on the Father’s behalf.

The instructive parallel of the Holy Spirit also shows that this dependence language does not imply inferiority of nature. We cannot plausibly understand Jesus to mean that the Holy Spirit remains ignorant of some truth until Jesus imparts it to him, or that the Spirit is inferior to Jesus. Rather, when Jesus says that the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own but speaks what he hears from Jesus, he means that the Holy Spirit’s ministry of revelation will be performed for the purpose of revealing and glorifying the Son. Jesus’ coming into the world as a mortal human being is indeed a special act of humiliation, but it appears that humility is a virtue or moral attribute that characterizes the divine persons of the Trinity. The Son comes to glorify the Father, the Father for his part glorifies the Son, and the Holy Spirit comes to glorify the Son.

The second thing we need to discuss that Jesus says in John 10:29 (according to most scholars) is that the Father is greater than all. (There are textual variants here, and the NRSV adopts the strange reading “What my Father has given me is greater than all else."If this reading turns out to be correct, the statement would be describing the sheep as greater than anything else" an odd statement, but one that clearly could not pose any objection to viewing Christ as God. I will, however, for the sake of argument assume that the majority view is correct here.) Anti-Trinitarians assume that Jesus is including himself in saying that the Father is greater than everyone" that is, that the Father is greater than Jesus. And that may well be. We know that Jesus could make such a statement, since he does so explicitly in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I." If so, Jesus in both of these passages would be saying that the Father was greater than he was. Does this contradict the idea that he is God? Again, not necessarily, if we understand these statements in the context of the Son’s humiliation in becoming a mortal human being. On the other hand, it is probably not the case that the two statements should be equated in this way.

In John 14, Jesus looks forward to his return to the Father’s presence and to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples, through whom even "greater" things would take place than the miracles Jesus had performed in the ministry of his earthly humiliation (v. 12). This statement clearly does not mean that the disciples would be greater than Jesus or even that they would do greater works than Jesus, because it would in fact be Jesus, through the Holy Spirit he was going to send to them, working within them to do those greater works, bringing glory to the Father and the Son (vv. 13-21). It is in this context of the Son’s exaltation and return to heaven and of the Spirit’s descent to the disciples that Jesus encourages his disciples to rejoice that he was going to the Father, "because the Father is greater than I" (vv. 26-28). Jesus’ ministry was limited by virtue of his living in mortal flesh; he was about to expand his ministry immeasurably by returning to the Father, whose greatness was not limited by the Incarnation, and sending the Spirit. Thus, Jesus affirms the relative greatness of the Father not as a denial of Jesus’ own divine identity but as an expression of his humiliation and radical dependence on the Father in the period leading up to his death.

When we look again at John 10:29, it is evident that Jesus is not denying divine power or identity. Jesus has just affirmed that no one could snatch the sheep from his hand (v. 28), and he now affirms that likewise no one can snatch them from the Father’s hand. In this context Jesus reminds his hearers that of course the Father is greater than everyone. No one can snatch the sheep from the Father’s hand because there is no one greater than the Father who could pull off such a feat. But then Jesus, far from drawing the supposedly obvious conclusion that he was inferior in power to the Father, makes the opposite assertion: "I and the Father are one" (v. 30). In context this can only reasonably mean, at the very least, that Jesus and the Father are perfectly one in their exercise of divine power to preserve the sheep and repel all attacks against them. "The Father is greater than all, so that no one can withstand him" but Jesus is one with the Father, so that no one can withstand him, either. Thus, in context, Jesus in John 10:29 is not saying that the Father was greater in divine power than he, but that the Father’s unparalleled greatness in power is his power, too. Far from disproving Christ’s equality with God, the logic of his argument in this passage strongly proves that he was claiming to be no less than God.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Up to now, I’ve been sharing what I think the Orthodox Church has to offer the non-Orthodox community. Now it’s time to turn the tables. My evangelical passions prompt me to suggest that the time has come for us Orthodox to rediscover the evangelical character of our own faith on its own terms not on the model of popular evangelicalism. (See my chapter The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. James Stamoolis (Zondervan, 2004)). Because of our maximalist vision of theology, our evangelical identity looks and acts very differently than yours. Still, I would like to suggest that the Great Tradition of our Great Church cuts both ways – we ourselves are judged by it! Even if the gospel is formally in the life of the Orthodox Church, as we believe, that does not mean our people have understood and appropriated its message. "Catholicity" (i.e. the whole and adequate expression of the faith) must be discerned and applied if the Church is to be spiritually viable in today’s world.

More and more Orthodox, as they study the Great Tradition, are admitting that many of our leaders and laity don’t have a mature grasp of their own faith. They recognize that the Church isn’t free from ethno-centrism or religious bigotry, that it hasn’t contextualized its faith and liturgy in the modern world, and that it hasn’t figured out how to relate to unchurched people in North America (its converts mostly consist of disillusioned believers from other Christian traditions). More and more Orthodox, as they explore the early church afresh, see that there are parts of its ancient liturgies that seem to have no biblical justification, and that we cannot simply regard the Reformation and the last millennium in the West as nothing more than a sideshow.

To be sure, there are countless cases of people whose spiritual lives are flourishing in vibrant Orthodox communities. Still, the most urgent need in world Orthodoxy at this time is the need to engage in an aggressive "internal mission" of evangelizing our priests and people to Jesus Christ. Our own Church Fathers, such as Sts. Symeon the New Theologian and Makarios of Egypt, exhort us to that end. I also know from personal experience that it’s possible to be "religious, but lost." That’s why all of us - bishops, priests and people—need to make the gospel crystal clear and absolutely central in our lives and in our parishes. We must constantly recover the personal and relational aspects of God in every life-giving action of the Church. Naturally, if this happens, it will lead to a revival within Orthodoxy itself, which will cause the Church to blossom in unprecedented ways. When all is said and done, I see many signs that suggest that the Orthodox and evangelical communities are gradually coming together  more in vision, than in fact. As more and more evangelicals appropriate things Orthodox, it may well be that the 21st century will go down in history as the Orthodox century.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Scholars define the Great Tradition as the theological consensus of the majority of believers during the first five hundred or thousand years of Christian history (the dates vary among theologians). It encompasses the Church’s universally agreed upon creeds, councils, fathers, worship and spirituality. Some of the key characteristics include the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition,the works of St. Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), the spiritual writings by monks such as St. Anthony of Egypt, and biblical commentaries and pastoral works. Over the past two decades, mainline and evangelical scholars have been rediscovering the creative relevance of the Christian East, with their insistence on the authority of the first 500 years of Christian teaching and practice.

The problem with the usual Protestant approach to the Great Tradition, however, is the gaps and inconsistencies in the retrieval efforts. To many, the Great Tradition is a library, a place you go to pick out the books you find most helpful. You can discard the ones that no longer seem relevant, while choosing the ones that have proven to be of lasting value. So what makes me think that this interest in the Great Tradition may lead to more Christians joining Eastern Orthodoxy or at least embracing more of its theological vision? Simply put, I think more and more people will recognize the vital relationship between the major movements and themes of Christian antiquity and their link to the organic life of the Eastern Orthodox Church from whence these themes came.

I imagine that the deeper evangelicals delve into history the more they will delimit the meaning of orthodoxy to the first five hundred or thousand years. They will come to embrace the whole story of the faithful, not just the parts they personally like. They will discover that the fullness of Christian orthodoxy does not end with a date in the history books, but lives on in what George Florovsky once called "the mind of the Church" or what John Meyendorff described as "the Church’s living tradition." Evangelicals will see that the theological and institutional history of the Great Tradition is directly tied to the Great Church—namely, the contemporary Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, Greece, Russia, Eastern Europe and their children in the West. They will recognize that today’s "rebirth of orthodoxy" can not do justice to classical Christian faith without keeping it connected to the Church that has most fully produced and inherited its achievements. Few will dispute the historical continuity between the modern Patriarchate of Antioch, for example, and its beginnings in the book of Acts. Of course, faithfulness to the truth of the Great Tradition, not organizational continuity, is what counts most – more on that in a bit.

My point is simply that I believe that those who value the classical faith will increasingly engage more deeply with the Orthodox Churches, which incarnate the Great Tradition day by day as a living tradition. I’m not advocating that the Great Tradition is the exclusive property of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is not. The early Church fathers, mothers, ascetics, councils, creeds, art, music and spirituality are the rightful heritage of all orthodox Christians = Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike. There is no room here for Orthodox triumphalism or romanticism. All orthodox Christians share a common ecumenical heritage to some extent. But few historians would dispute the conclusion that in comparison to the 20,000 Protestant denominations in existence today, the Orthodox community can claim most justifiably to be the  fullest heir apparent of the Great Tradition, even if they disagree with it.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

For a long time, Albania has closed its doors to western scholars. Last summer, a four-person team from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts went to Tirana to photograph 13 manuscripts in the National Archive. They were unprepared for what would happen on their first day on the job. They saw an old typewritten, in-house catalog of manuscripts, and noticed that there were forty-seven (47) NT MSS! The Dallas Morning News reported on this to some degree, featuring a full-page article on the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

In addition to this article, Christianity Today is scheduled to post a more in-depth story about the manuscript discoveries on March 10 at their website. Be sure to check it out.

I’ll leave the details of the importance of these manuscripts to the CT article, and will post later about what we discovered.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

…the same woman who Janie Bush was talking about, who was a Pro-choice activist in the Dallas Community, when she came into our clinic—we were inviting her to learn more about abortion—this is a quote from this woman, she said "if I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a potential human life I could not be pro-choice." I said "it would be best for you not to see a sonogram."

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!