In last two posts, I have tried to define the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. Specifically, I have tried to distinguish it from any theory that allows for or requires two sources of ultimate authority, tradition and Scripture (dual source theory). As well (and just as important), I have attempted to disassociate sola Scriptura from the common misunderstanding that its advocates do not allow for any other authority. This extensive concentration on defining the doctrine is so that it might be properly defended. In other words, I don’t want to defend a doctrine that is mis-defined in the mind of the readers.

Before I move on to a proper defense of sola Scriptura, I want to attempt to defend its primary historical rival, the dual-source theory. I do this so that one might be able to see the full balance of the positions in perspective. In addition, by giving a short defense of why people hold to some form of dual-source theory, one can see the responses that advocates of sola Scriptura would give to such.

Dual-Source Theory

Definition: The Apostle’s teaching is absolutely and ultimately authoritative as a rule for Christian doctrine and practice. This teaching was handed down in two forms: written and unwritten. The written teaching was codified in the Scriptures. The unwritten Tradition—the oral or “living” Tradition—was passed on through the succession of apostles (Apostolic succession) and is equal to Scripture as an authority in the Christian life, being that it came through the same source—the Apostle’s teaching. In the case of the Roman Catholic tradition, the Magisterial authority (Pope and the congregation of bishops) serve as an infallible interpreter, protected by the Holy Spirit, of both the unwritten and written tradition (the third leg of the three leg stool of authority).

Defense of the Dual-Source Theory

1. The Scriptures clearly say that there were many other things that Christ did that were not written down.

Jn. 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

The idea is that the body of revelation given by Christ was not exhausted by the writings of the Apostles. This, at least, evidences that there could have been oral teachings that were passed on and just as authoritative.

2. The New Testament writers clearly speak about the importance of Tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

Notice the dual sources of the one teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2
“I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you.”

This illustrates that traditions (paradosis) are what is being passed on. At the very least, this should help to take the focus off the way in which a tradition is handed down. In other words, the focus is not on written tradition as sola Scriptura advocates tend to believe.

Jude 1:3
“Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Notice, the faith was delivered to the “saints.” The “saints” represent a living entity of preservation, not a book, which we know as the Church.

3. Christ gave authority over the Church to the apostles and their successors (apostolic succession). Roman Catholic Only: Peter and his successors were given the ultimate authority in the Church (papacy or the Seat of Rome).

Jn. 20:23
[Christ, speaking to the apostles] “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”

Matt. 18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

This represents the ultimate authority of the Church which has the authority to “bind” and “release.”

Matt. 16:17–19
“And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

For the Roman Catholic, this teaches that Peter was given a special and ultimate authority among the Apostles. Therefore, his successors (the Bishop of Rome, the Pope), would naturally carries this same authority.

4. Without the infallible declaration of the Church, there would be no way of knowing what books belong in the canon of Scripture.

In my opinion, this is perhaps the strongest objection to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. The idea here is that if the Scripture is the only infallible authority, then where does it infallibly derive its authority to be Scripture? In other words, there is no list of books that belong in the Scripture (canon) anywhere in inspired Scripture. Therefore, Tradition and/or the Church has to determine or recognize what books are indeed Scripture. If Tradition and/or the Church does not have infallible authority, then it’s pronouncement are fallible—even pronouncements about what books belong in the Bible. Therefore, advocates of sola Scriptura are left with a rather odd confession that they have a fallible canon of infallible books.

5. Without the infallible authority of the Church, the Church would be hopelessly divided on matters of doctrine and morals. This would not be the Church that Christ started.

Of course, as opponents of sola Scriptura would argue, this is indeed the case with the Protestant tradition. The Bible alone is not a sufficient authority to keep unity as is evidenced by the thousands of denominations and disagreements within Protestantism. On the other hand, Christian traditions that advocate some sort of dual-source theory (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) are united under the living tradition and its regulating force.

Next I will provide a response to this from the sola Scriptura position to these arguments. Please feel free to give any further defense of the dual-source theory if you feel I have left something out.

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!

        

I just got word this past Friday that my most recent book When God Goes to Starbucks (Baker Books) has finally been published. As with my other popular-level books in this “series” (including “True for You, But Not for Me,” “That’s Just Your Interpretation,” and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?”), this book deals with more challenging and even controversial topics—ranging from lying to Nazis and being “born gay”/gay marriage to comparing Islamic jihad with the Bible’s holy wars and considering whether Jesus got things wrong about an anticipated early second coming (parousia).

Publishers Weekly had this to say about the book:

“Copan, a professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, submits an excellent and comprehensive resource to help Christians contend with controversial questions about their faith. Copan writes eloquently and respectfully on social and moral themes: when is lying biblically acceptable? why does a sovereign god demand worship from humanity? how can Christians believe theirs is the only way to heaven? what does God have to say about homosexuality and same-sex marriage? Though each topic is approached with care, Copan does not flinch from a biblical stance and delineates each problem with exemplary thoroughness. Thoughtful readers will find great value in his approach to unpacking Christian slogans as related to truth and reality, worldviews and religious belief systems. He expertly unmasks the problematic ‘personal autonomy’ philosophy that makes “sweeping relativistic claims, but then tacks on absolute, inviolable standards at the end.” Copan’s skillful approach to apologetics provides ample information on hot-topic themes, but some readers may not be up to the challenge of slowly digesting his thought-provoking, weighty explanations.”

Well, there you have it! For your information, the chapter titles are listed below. I hope you’ll check out the book and that it will be a profitable read for you.

Introduction

Part I: Slogans Related to Truth and Reality

1. Why Not Just Look Out for Yourself?
2. Do What You Want—Just as Long as You Don’t Hurt Anyone
3. Is It Okay to Lie to Nazis?

Part II: Slogans Related to Worldviews

4. Why Is God So Arrogant and Egotistical?
5. Miracles Are Unscientific
6. Only Gullible People Believe in Miracles
7. Don’t People from All Religions Experience God?
8. Does the Bible Condemn Loving, Committed Homosexual Relationships?
9. Aren’t People Born Gay?
10. What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?

Part III: Slogans Related to Christianity

11. How Can the Psalmists Say Such Vindictive, Hateful Things?
12. Aren’t the Bible’s “Holy Wars” Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part One
13. Aren’t the Bible’s “Holy Wars” Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part Two
14. Aren’t the Bible’s “Holy Wars” Just Like Islamic Jihad? Part Three
15. Was Jesus Mistaken about an Early Second Coming? Part One
16. Was Jesus Mistaken about an Early Second Coming? Part Two
17. Why Are Christians So Divided? Why So Many Denominations?

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Blomberg writes about what he concludes is an “underused” argument for the resurrection.

“Whatever you think of the logic of Gamaliel’s argument as described in Acts 5 (leave the disciples alone and if the movement is not of God it will go away–but that sure hasn’t worked for Islam!), it’s interesting to apply it to first-century rabble rousers.

The origin of the Zealot movement, rightly or wrongly, is traditionally ascribed to Judas the Galilean who revolted in A.D. 6 and who was decisively squelched by the Romans.  Gamaliel makes reference to him and also to a Theudas, a common name (more than a dozen appear in Josephus alone), so it’s hard to be sure who to equate him with.  Then there’s the Egyptian assassin that Paul is mistaken for by the Roman guard when he is arrested in Jerusalem toward the end of his missionary career (Acts 21-22).

 In fact, Josephus narrates, in various lengths, the accounts of a whole array rebels of various kinds throughout the first century, who all contributed in various ways to the growing Jewish discontent with Rome, the slowly organizing Zealot movement, and ultimately to the ill-fated Jewish war with Rome, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70.

If you want to read a good, in-depth investigation of these folks and their exploits, see Richard Horsley’s Bandits, Prophets, Messiahs.  I love the title.  Several of these rebel leaders were little more than ancient would-be Robin Hood’s but less consistently noble.  Others believed they were Yahweh’s prophets or even Messiahs.  Some gathered large, reasonably organized followings and armies.  Others garnered little more than other riff-raff, criminals and malcontents.  The Judean hill country, like the caves at the base of the cliffs near the shores of Lake Galilee, always offered such groups the opportunity to hideout and try to surprise smaller Roman outposts here and there with nighttime attacks.

But there was one thing they all had in common.  They all lost, sooner or later.  No one ever succeeded in overthrowing the Romans in the first century, not in Israel, not anywhere in the empire.  Indeed, Jewish guerilla warfare was “small peanuts” compared, say, to the ever-serious Parthian threat to the northeast of the borders of the Roman empire and their raids on and incursion into Roman territory that kept a fair number of Roman troops occupied in defense.

More importantly for historical Jesus research, when a Jewish rebel leader was killed, one of only two things ever happened.  Either the movement died out, or the movement’s adherents turned to a new leader, often a family member of the first one, especially a brother or son off the deceased man (a venerable tradition going all the way back to the Maccabean revolt and succession of Hasmonean leaders in the second century B.C).

What never happened, at least as far as we know from any records still in existence, is that the rebel leaders’  followers continued to accept his claim about his identity, or the claims they had made for him.  The concept of a dead messiahs was simply oxymoronic, if not flat out moronic!  Even prophets, though they certainly could be killed (just read the Old Testament, to say nothing of subsequent Jewish tradition), shouldn’t die in battle against the enemy if they had previously “prophesied” victory.

Suddenly, the first generation of Jesus’ followers stands out in dramatic, unprecedented contrast.  Facts no sensible historians will dispute (yes, I know there are a few of the other kind) include: 1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate for the charge of being a would-be king (Messiah) of the Jews.  2) The movement of his followers did not die out but grew.  3) They continued to hail him as some kind of king and Messiah.  4) They did not turn to one of his family members or to one of his disciples to be their next prospective Messiah.  James, Jesus’ half-brother and Peter, the leader of the twelve, played prominent roles but never replaced Jesus’ unique roles from his lifetime.  As far as I know, this quartet of facts is unparalleled in ancient Middle Eastern history from any era.

The question then becomes why this unprecedented and implausible chain of events occur[r]ed.  The traditional Christian answer sounds pretty strong even if one wears just a historian’s hat (i.e., bracketing any religious faith or anti-religious bias for a moment).  That answer is that the disciples saw Jesus alive again, not just in a visionary way–that had plenty of precedent (or alleged precedent) to demonstrate that his spirit lived on in some other world.  Rather they believed they had seen him with a real human, though glorified body.  Can anyone think of a more probable explanation of these four facts than this traditional Christian reply?  I can’t.”

What do you all think?

Send post as PDF to

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

        

When Angie (my sister) died, my father started drinking quite a bit. I think he blames himself for her death. All he can think of is that he was supposed to protect her. He was the last person who saw her. She was staying at my parents house and the morning of her disappearance she asked him if he knew where her keys were. I think he said he was busy. She left and was not seen alive again by anyone in the family.

My mom kept my dad in line as she has always done. But now that she has suffered from a mentally and physically debilitating stroke and aneurysm, I just don’t think he knows what to do. He has had three DUIs in the last three years. Not good. But . . . you know what? I don’t know what to say to him. I think he just wants to die and go be with her. I love him very much even though we have never had much of a relationship. I don’t know anything worse than him going to jail. He has too much pride, but I guess things have changed. I don’t really know if he trusts the Lord. I have asked before, but it always seems so strange. I always feel like an 8 year old when I talk to him. I get scared.

Really, when I think of it, I have lost a sister and now have a 57 year old mom whose primary means of communication is singing a handful of songs. But my father . . . He has lost a daughter and now has a wife whose diapers he has to change.

I am sorry dad, if you are reading this. I don’t blame you for your disillusionment with life. I don’t blame you for trying to escape it. I don’t know what to say. I, like you, can’t fix anything. I wish I could. I thought I could. But I can’t.

You know . . . I don’t know how people make it who don’t believe in God’s sovereignty and knowledge of the future. I really don’t. I don’t know what I would do if I thought that God was sitting on the edge of His seat wondering what was going to happen next, cheering us on.

Is God a cheerleader? Or is he a coach? Or maybe a player in the game? I guess that is the question. Let’s just say, in my mind, if He is a cheerleader, He is awfully irrelevant, even if He is a cheerleader who loves me. But since I believe He is calling the shots and He is in control of the “game,” I know that I can make it through this and whatever else comes my way. It’s His program and I trust that He knows what He is doing. He has yet to lie to me. God has never promised me anything that He has gone back on. I dare not put a covenant in His mouth. Confusion is part of my life, but not disillusionment.

God cannot be controlled. I told my sister tonight that he has an agenda and it does not seem to be ours. He is in charge, not me. This is not as bad as it sounds, for my agenda, as nice and comfortable as it might be lacks the perspective of his plan. Sure, if I were God I would fix everything. I would clear out the hospitals, make sure that marriages last, cure depression, and feed the world. Wouldn’t you? But this does not make my agenda superior to God’s. I know that he has a game plan and that suffering is part of this game plan. In this I will rejoice . . . somehow I can. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the game lasts forever.

I know it will all work together for good, I really do, but oh that it would come to a conclusion one way or another. I hope we are in the fourth quarter. Right now, I feel like I am in mourning delayed or mourning denied with my mom. With Angie, it is mourning postponed. But the game will go on.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Get PDF version

I am thoroughly orthodox. No, not Eastern with a capital “O”, but orthodox meaning that I believe all the right things. Well . . . at least I think I am. But, really, it depends on how one defines “orthodox.” What does it mean to be orthodox?

It would seem that this question is taking center stage in the current theological landscape. I have heard rumors that some prominent leaders in the emerging church are going to be writing on this issue, challenging the traditional thought concerning what it means to be “orthodox”—even more than they have already done. Some in the Emergent church, such as Tony Jones and Brian McLaren, are saying that there may not be such a thing as “orthodox.” Others, like Andrew Jones, seem to suggest that orthodoxy simply should be thought of as “right worship” rather than right teaching. Some of our more fundamentalistic brothers and sisters believe that orthodox means you agree with everything in their particular tradition or denomination. Some Christians even say that “orthodoxy” is a representation of a dynamic confession that has developed throughout church history. Well . . . ahem . . . that would be me.

With this in mind, I have written a short series on this subject. I am going to try to argue that there is such a thing as orthodoxy and it means first and foremost “right teaching” or “right belief.” I am also going to propose that orthodoxy is a progressive representation of truth as it has been revealed and understood throughout history.

Here is the chart that I will use to serve as a visual aid. We will break it down and add to it throughout this series.

Let me start at the beginning.

Notice the dotted line. This represents the division between God’s eternal existence which is static (above the line) and man’s time-bound existence which is dynamic (below the line).

God gave man revelation in a progressive fashion. This is often referred to as “progressive revelation.” This simply means that when Adam and Eve were in the Garden, God did not give them a completed Scripture. For example, Abraham did not know as much as Moses about redemption. He had some basic components, but very few details. The same can be said of David. While he new more than both Abraham and Moses, he did not know as much as Isaiah, and so on.

The canon itself is a dynamic and progressive revealing of truth as God brings about his redemptive purpose with man. The small “t” represents the first installment, if you will, to truth. The “tr” shows how this revelation of truth was progressive through time. As you can see, revelation is completed in the New Testament when the complete truth of God’s revelation has been finalized in the coming of Christ and the writings of the Apostles.

But notice something important. “Truth” is all in lower case below the dotted line, while above the dotted line it is in upper case. This refers to the revelation of truth in contrast to the understanding of truth. While God’s revelation was completed, I believe, at the completion of the New Testament, the understanding of this truth in a canonical whole had just begun. I have more to say about this, but I don’t think it would be beneficial at this point. Just keep this in mind as it serves as an important presumption of my thoughts.

Notice here that while revelation has ceased, our understating of this revelation is developing. Both Catholics and Protestants hold to a theory called “doctrinal development.” While the details of how doctrine develops is much different, the basic confession is the same: doctrine develops from one stage to another. This is because truth itself is better understood as time affords.

If you can think of a seed developing into a tree. Or even better, a baby developing into an adult. The same basic components (DNA) are in the adult as was in the baby, yet the adult has matured through time. The adult has learned and developed into a more articulate and distinct looking human. The same can be said about doctrine. Our understanding, pushed forward through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, has grown.

It is not the “one deposit of faith that was once for all handed over to the saints” that has changed, but it is our understanding of it that has matured.

The capital letters in “truth” begin to arise. Again, this is not because truth itself is changing, but because our understanding of truth is maturing. For example, while the early church believed in the deity of Christ in some sense, they did not know how to articulate this understanding in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit. As controversies arose, the contrast that the controversies provided helped the church to develop their understanding to a more mature form. This maturation eventually gave forth in the articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). That is why we have a capital “T” while the rest remains lower case. As time goes on, the church is forced to wrestle with their understanding concerning many more issues.

The capital letters are not meant to convey that we understand truth to the degree that God understands truth, but that we have come to, what we believe, is a maturation of the faith. Can it mature more, possibly, but this maturation will seldom be antithetical to that which has gone before. In other words, the capital “T” will not change to a “D” or an “N.” I will have to defend this more as we continue our study, but hopefully this is a helpful start.

Finally we have this chart which illustrate how our understanding of “orthodox” is in development along with our illumination to the truth.

The primary argument here is that while our orthodoxy may not be perfect this side of heaven, it, nevertheless, can be an accurate understanding of TRUTH. As Dr. John Hannah would say, “We cannot know God fully, but we can know him truly.” I would say the same for orthodoxy.

I was at a meeting where Brian McLaren said that he believes truth itself is dynamic, changing, and evolving. I am not sure if he still believes this or would continue to articulate it in such a way, but, at least at the time, I was very uncomfortable with his proposition (yes, it was a proposition). Truth does not change.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that orthodoxy changes. Use the words develop, dynamic, and even evolve, but the word “change” is too strong. It implies an antithetical development of orthodoxy that I don’t think a proper view of history need allow.

Part 2: Six Views of Orthodoxy

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”?

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 for or against anyone.

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 early church—namely in the consensual beliefs of the early church. This is a form of “consensual orthodoxy” (consensus fidelium). This search for consensus follows the dictum of Saint Vincent of Lrins: 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 many 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.

quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus

Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy

My view of what I call “progressive orthodoxy” allows for maturation and development in our understanding of orthodoxy. I will now further explain this position. First, let me restate the definition:

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 or participation in the sacraments.

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. (Thomas Oden)

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

Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox

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 and the other magesterial reformers?

I think that there is a more reasonable option here. This option follows the idea of progressive orthodoxy that we have talked about earlier. 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!

        

Wednesday, June 18, 2008. The day started at 11 am at the Greek Bible Institute in Pikermi, just outside of Athens. Late start because we thought driving to the famed monasteries of Meteora would take four hours. Four of us (Billy Todd, Tim Ricchuiti, Brian Wright, and Dan Wallace) shoehorned ourselves into a tiny car, and took off for the road north. But we were not prepared for what would await us today.

We took the E75 up the east coast of Greece’s mainland. For the most part, a very fine, modern highway. After we had traveled for about 2 & ½ hours, we got an email on Tim Ricchuiti’s cell phone from Jeff Baldwin, the director of the Greek Bible Institute and a former student of mine. Jeff grew up in Greece (his dad, Bill Baldwin, another Dallas Seminary grad, was the founder of the school decades ago) and is completely bilingual. He has many friends in low places (since he’s not Orthodox), but even low places here are sometimes high enough. As I said, we were headed for the monasteries built high up on top of rocks that ascend straight up into the heavens hundred of meters above the town below. We thought we would visit them today, and tomorrow see if we could examine some manuscripts there. The monasteries here have nearly 60 Greek New Testament manuscripts. In centuries past, the only way that people could get to the top of these rocks was to get pulled up on a rope. But once, when a rope broke, the rules changed. Now, there are steps to the heights. A veritable stairway to heaven. Led Zeppelin would be envious. We were eager with anticipation (as much as four Testoterone-laden eggheads can be). But the email from Jeff changed our plans instantly.

For the rest of the story, you’ll have to go to www.bible.org. The link to the essay is here.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Any attempt to defend a position is going to be met with three things: 1) reasoned rebuttal from those who are truly trying to understand yet disagree, 2) antagonistic reaction from those who see your argument as a threat to their favorite position and have an emotional reaction to it, and 3) misguided response from those who misunderstand and misdefine the position that you are attempting to defend.

As part of my continued belief that people (including Protestants) don’t really understand sola Scriptura, in my initial post in this series, I distinguished it from four other views. I had hoped that this would serve to prevent reaction #3, but such was not the case. Nevertheless, here is another chart to help define my position.

In my initial defining I distanced the doctrine from those who would claim that there is more than one infallible authority for the Christian (dual-source theory or sola ecclesia) and those who would claim that the Scripture is the sole authority for the Christian (solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura). The doctrine of sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian. In other words, it is the ultimate authority.

That sola Scriptura utilizes other authorities is evident even in the heat of the Reformation as Martin Luther was called to Worms to give an account of himself. When asked to recant his controversial writings, after sleeping on it, Luther uttered these famous words in response:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony from scripture or by evident reason—for I confide neither in the Pope nor in a Council alone, since it is certain they have often erred and contradicted themselves—I am held fast by the scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is held captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing it is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.“

Notice here that the “testimony of scripture” holds his conscience “captive.” Not only this, but it was the testimony of Scripture “adduced by me.” This is not meant to advocate isolationist interpretation, but to convey the personal responsibility Luther felt to produce his own convictions. But notice that Luther did have respect for the authority of Popes and councils. He says, “I confide neither in Pope or in a Council alone” (emphasis mine). The key is the “alone.” Luther did confide in Popes and councils, but found them insufficient to have a final or independent voice in issues of faith. Why? According to Luther, it is because they can and do err. Tradition, according to Luther, has a subordinate authority to the Scripture, but is an authority nonetheless.

Notice also that “evident reason” is on Luther’s list of authority. Luther understood that reason has an important role to play in the binding of our conscience. In fact, it would seem that reason played a bigger role in Luther’s decision than tradition.

Finally, individual conscience itself plays an authoritative role in our lives. Luther believed that it is not “safe or right to act against conscience.” Whether Luther would have attributed his statements here to the movements of the Holy Spirit upon our conscience or simply define conscience is the product of the adducement of authority is hard to say. What is important is that Luther was referring to individual responsibility.

Now, this one paragraph is certainly not sufficient to pin down Luther’s entire theology of authority—much less the entire reformed perspective—but it does serve to illustrate the founding balance sola Scriptura provides through the interaction of many sources of authority.

Sola Scriptura is more than just a doctrine, but a road to responsibility before man and God. Luther could not in good conscience outsource his theology to any magisterial court, council, or successor to the seat of St. Peter. If he did, his convictions would not be his own. Luther was not into the “copy-and-paste” theology—the kind that had come to be mandated by ecclesiastical authorities of his day. He renewed and fostered a legacy which requires every man to seek for, wrestle with, and discover truth on their own, knowing that we will not be judged under the umbrella of a council, pastor, parent, family, or church, but by our own integrity of heart and mind.

Our beliefs are too precious to require any less. Sola Scriptura represents the legacy of Christ’s first words to two hopeful fisherman, “come and see.”

Send post as PDF to

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

        

This is a letter from Greg Eby, a student in The Theology Program, to his pastor about The Theology Program.

____________________

Remember the rigid Fundamentalism of the 60’s and early 70’s?  Or, more specifically, do you recall the Baptist Fundamentalism that was prevalent during this particular era of intense cultural upheaval?  I sure do…

The advent of the 60’s introduced us to the Beatles, the hippies, the rock & roll revolution, Viet Nam War protests, promiscuous sex, drug abuse, etc., etc., ad nauseam. 

But, in Fundamentalist circles the 60’s precipitated something altogether different…..”The list.”  Surely you remember “The List.”  While pulpiteers gave lip service to the Age of Grace and extolled the virtue of our freedom from the shackles of the Law, in reality, we found that the Decalogue had simply been supplanted by other unwritten regulations, i.e. “The List.”  

While hair length, dress code, and music were the chief constituents of this unwritten list of stipulations,  this trio was often accompanied by other rules, some of which found their way into church covenants and were therefore codified in written form.  Examples of these included abstinence from the use of playing cards, tobacco, alcohol, and movie theaters.  (By the way, I am neither a smoker nor a drinker.  I plead the 5^th with regard to occasional movie going).

It seems that the Church, reeling from the explosion of worldliness in the surrounding culture, reacted by seeking to legislate spirituality.  The lessons of the Old Testament and the failures of the Old Covenant to consistently reform (let alone transform) the children of Israel seemed to have been long forgotten.  As a young person I can personally attest that any mention from the pulpit of a vital, personal relationship with Jesus Christ seemed to pale in significance to the emphasis placed upon “The List.”   It was an age of legalism, and the Gospel was engulfed within the milieu characterized by rules and stipulations.  Consequently, I believe many young people were brought into outward conformity – but remained spiritually stunted inwardly…

Well, lest I seem overly critical of Fundamentalism, let me say that both contemporary Baptists and Protestants owe a debt of gratitude to those Fundamentalists who zealously guarded many essentials of the Christian faith from the encroachment of modernism and liberalism, particularly during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  Higher critics attacked the authority of Scripture, cast aspersions upon the historicity of Jesus, questioned His deity, and generally sought to disprove the miracles recorded in the Bible… 

It seems that Fundamentalism was faced with fighting a battle on two fronts:  the impingement of higher criticism on the one hand; the exponential growth of worldliness on the other.  I don’t fault Fundamentalism for entering the fray; but, I do decry the fact that many casualties in this war were suffered by young people who were the victims of “friendly fire.”  I was one of those.  Caught up in a distorted gospel of “do’s and don’t’s,” it was easy to succumb to the notion that external conformity was the defining essence of Christianity…  How many young people prayed “the sinners prayer,” embraced outward conformity, and then assumed their fire insurance policy was in full force?

The pervasive legalism in the moral realm was paralleled by pervasive dogmatism in the doctrinal realm.  Fundamentalism, in its “knee jerk” reaction to the excesses of liberalism, became very narrow and rigid in its theology.  Never mind the fact that God gave us a brain capable of critical thinking skills – the very skills exercised by the Bereans when they compared Paul’s preaching to the Old Testament Scriptures.  Of course, by “critical” I don’t mean negative.  I am primarily referring to an individual’sevaluation and assessment of truth claims in light of Scripture and in consultation with other believers within the community of faith. The rigid, over-protective, isolationist mentality of 30 years ago was not conducive to “doing theology outside the box.”  It was, however, conducive to the indoctrination/regurgitation method of “teaching” doctrine.  Consequently, we are faced with a generation of adults who know what they believe, but they are unable to rationally defend their beliefs because they have never critically examined the propositional content upon which they have placed their faith.  They don’t know why they believe…. 

I remember the militant separatists within the GARBC who were so jealous of their pulpit that they were suspicious of any Baptist outside the Association.  And God forbid they should share their platform witha non-Baptist!  Fundamental Baptists had a corner on the truth and felt they must protect their doctrinal integrity at all costs.  This atmosphere was counterproductive to critical thinking and independent Bible study.  It did, however, produce its share of pride and judgmentalism.  This should be no surprise, for judgmentalism is the handmaiden of legalism.

In my view the fundamental problem with Fundamentalism (no pun intended) is not its enthusiastic regard for absolute truth.  (I share that enthusiasm).  The problem is its penchant for viewing all theology in black/white, all or nothing categories.  According to the strict fundamentalist any doctrine deemed worthy of embracing is automatically decreed to be in the “essentials” category and warrants a “10″ on the scale of certainty.  I concede a bit of hyperbole here, but it seems that nothing – short of the identity of the Nephilim in Genesis chapter 6 – is open to debate or discussion…  Howard Hendricks cites a quotation in his book, “Color Outside the Lines” that is most applicable here.

“From the cowardice that dares not face new truth, from the laziness that is contented with half-truth, from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Good Lord, deliver me.
Amen.” 

-Prayer From Kenya

In TTP (The Theology Program) we discuss an assortment of erroneous methods of “doing theology.”  I use the phrase “doing theology” because TTP is a theological methods program – not a catechism.  We extol the virtues of doing exegesis within a historical, grammatical, contextual, and literary framework; of comparing Scripture with Scripture; of extracting timeless principles; of distilling those principles into a theological statement (a timeless truth); and then asking the question, “How does it apply to us today?” not “What does it mean to me?”  The latter question is characteristic of subjective theology and symptomatic of   postmodern epistemology and the manner in which it has infiltrated the Church.  In short, the Bible is not subject to a myriad of meanings superimposed upon it by private interpretation. 

In The Theology Program we discuss the categories of “True Relativity” (consisting in  situations/opinions) versus “True Objectivity” (consisting of the cardinal doctrines essential to historic Christianity but also including those non-essential tenets subject to debate and discussion).

In The Theology Program we ask questions like the following:

• l What teachings are absolutely essential for an individual to be saved?
• l What teachings are essential for orthodoxy?
• l What teachings are important but not essential?
• l What teachings are not important?
• l What teachings are open to pure speculation?

The Theology Program rejects the Postmodern View of Truth and posits the        Correspondence View of Truth, “the belief that truth corresponds to objective reality.”  But, having said this, we discourage rigidity of opinion and dogmatism in the classroom.  Lively interaction and discussion in the classroom is encouraged – in fact, it is an integral part of what TTP is all about.  On the other hand, polemics and heated verbal altercations are not permitted.  We recognize that no single individual has a corner on all truth and the study of theology is best done “in community” within the Body of Christ.  My reasons for saying this are the following:

• l The noeticeffects of sin. Although all redeemed individuals are new creations in Christ, it is intellectually dishonest to disavow the vestigial effects of original sin upon our intellects and reasoning abilities. The remnant of the sin principle in the life of the Christian can impede not only his volition but also his cognitive abilities. I believe this is one of the reasons we often perceive truth “through a glass darkly.” This is also why it is so important for us to renew our minds daily through Scripture reading, prayer, and interaction with other believers.
• l Although supreme objectivity is always to be our ultimate goal, we all have experiential and emotional baggage that we bring to the study of Scripture. In addition, we all tend to view theology through the lens of our pre-understandings and “folk theology.” In our present state of humanness it is impossible to totally divorce these influences from our understanding of Scripture. This is where, I believe, rigid fundamentalists have been intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps they have just buried their heads in the sand…
• l The Bible itself is not a systematic theology textbook. Many doctrinal tenets are rather loosely interspersed throughout its pages. It appears that God expects us to use our minds to organize, categorize, and systematize the truths contained within the pages of His Word. We find doctrinal “dots” all across the pages of the Bible, but God expects us to sharpen our own pencils and connect those dots in proper fashion to produce an orderly, coherent theological perspective. [Moreover, we often forget that many of the refined articulations of doctrine taken for granted by evangelicals have evolved over the course of 2000 years of Church history and are the product of many "movers and shakers" who have gone before us. We stand upon the shoulders of the early Church fathers, and other men like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Though deceased, these men are constituents of the community of faith. Every time we read one of their commentaries or consult one of their works we are "doing theology in community."]
• l Finally, because we all “see through a glass darkly,” we all bring our own alternative brands of Windex to the “glass” in an effort to perceive truth more clearly. And when we read the labels on each brand of glass cleaner we find that each has a unique blend of ingredients. Some might contain a higher percentage of reason and logic; others, a higher proportion of tradition and experience. The particular mix depends upon the individual. But our purpose is the same, to determine the single objective interpretation of the truth. And this is why it is so important for “iron to sharpen iron.” (By the way, don’t laugh at my Windex analogy. I came up with that on my own and I happen to think it is pretty good J).

Students who are new to The Theology Program are asked to temporarily place their current theological constructs on a shelf.  They are asked to consider some of the most cogent arguments (bothpro and con) of various – and often divergent – theological perspectives prevalent within evangelicalism.  They are asked to ponder the Scriptures supporting and refuting each position.  This is where critical thinking skills come into play.  In addition, they are strongly encouraged to discuss their thoughts withone another as they progress through the curriculum.  This is what “doing theology” is all about.  As the student further develops his own theology, many of the constructs placed on the shelf will be re-integrated into his theological understanding.  Moreover, he will engage in this process with renewed enthusiasm and fervency because the end product is his theology.  It is his because he has appropriated it by conviction.  This is the most exciting aspect of TTP.  At this point the student is in a better position to defend his beliefs and be the “salt” and “light” so desperately needed in our Postmodern society…

Allow me to close this letter by sharing a classroom experience which had a profound impact on my life.  During one of our class sessions I recall a spirited (almost heated) exchange occurring  between two of my fellow TA’s(teaching assistants).  It happened to revolve around some of the finer points of doctrine pertaining to a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper.  I remember intervening privately in an attempt to resolve the dispute.  I feared their friendship might be in jeopardy.  But what I observed during a subsequent class is what really “blew me away…”  With a complete absence of any pretense or hesitation these two individuals greeted each other in a sincere, warm-hearted fashion.  What I observed was unfeigned, unconditional acceptance.  How could this be?  Shouldn’t they be harboring a grudge or nursing hurt feelings?  I firmly believe they were illustrating what Chuck Swindoll articulates so very well in this quote from his book, “The Grace Awakening.”

One of the marks of maturity is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.  It takes grace.  In fact, handling disagreements with tact is one of the crowning achievements of grace.

Unfortunately, the older we get the more brittle we become in our reactions, the more tedious and stubborn and fragile.  For some strange reason, this is especially true among evangelical Christians.  You would think that the church would be the one place where we could find tolerance, tact, plenty of room for disagreement, and open discussion.  Not so!  It is a rare delight to come across those in the family of God who have grown old in grace as well as in knowledge. (Emphasis mine).

Dear Pastor, I am wondering if the gist of this letter resonates with you.  Perhaps you have suffered at the hands of fellow fundamentalists because you have dared to be creative and implement innovations in methodology at FBC…..

My object in writing this letter is to be the best possible ambassador for Christ and for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, and most specifically, The Theology Program (TTP).  The study of theology needn’t be dry, dusty, and stodgy.  In fact, when it properly engages the critical thinking processes of the brain it can revitalize a church and serve as a catalyst for revival!  It has certainly had that impact upon my life.

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!

        

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist.

Let me introduce some similar terms that will help get a grasp on this issue.

Maximalist

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. Any disagreement, no matter how small it is perceived to be, does not take away from its importance. All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

Centrist

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a compromised center.

Many in the Emergent and liberal Church share this perspective.

Centralist

One who starts with the center of Christianity and believes that it provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides.

Most in the Historic Evangelical church, some emergers, and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

What is the “center” of the faith?

The doctrine of the Scripture? The doctrine of truth? Helping those in need? Social action? No. None of these in my opinion are the center of the faith. The center of our faith is Christ. If you want to say “the doctrine of Christ,” that is good as well. It is the person and work of Christ that is the center of Christianity. “Who do men say that I am?” is the most important theological question there is. If you get this wrong, all else will not only come undone, but it will be meaningless. If you get this right, there is a foundational unifying factor that we must recognize and in light of which all other issue must find their place.

Those who say that Christ is the eternal God-man who died for our sins and rose from the grave have more common ground with each other than they often care to admit.

Here are some differences between the four positions:

Maximalist: Let’s find all denominators.
Minimalist: Let’s find the least common denominator.
Centrist: Let’s create a new denominator that is somewhere in the middle.
Centralist: Let’s find the most important denominator.

Maximalist: We will militantly divide over all issues since all issue are of equal importance. 
Minimalist: Issues that people disagree upon unnecessarily divides, therefore, let’s not discuss disagreements.
Centrist: Let’s all move more toward the middle ground, then we can get along.
Centralist: If we are united around the centrality of Christ, let all other issues find perspective in this agreement.

Maximalist: The truth is in the maximum.
Minimalist: The truth is in the minimal.
Centrist: The truth is in the middle.
Centralist: The truth is in the central.

Maximalist: Approach to Church history: All traditions that do not completely agree with us are anathema.
Minimalist: Approach to Church history: Find the minimal areas of agreement and form a new tradition.
Centrist: Approach to Church history: Use the dialectical method understanding history as a stepping stone to the evolution of truth.
Centralist: Approach to Church history: Find the central areas of agreement and recognize this commonality.

Maximalist: Non-essentials = essentials (there is no such thing)
Minimalist: Non-essentials = non-importance
Centrist: Non-essentials = everything
Centralist: Non-essentials should be put into their relative positions of importance to the degree that they affect the central issues.

I don’t believe in a minimalist or centrist approach to truth. Minimizing Christianity undermines the truth and strangles revelation. Finding middle ground compromises the truth.

Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God? No. Impossible.

Centralizing Christ to the Glory of God? Absolutely. By definition, when we center on the person and work of Christ, God will be glorified.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“If it ain’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” Have you ever heard said that? How about this one: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” You might have that bumper sticker. Why not? Doesn’t this represent the glory of the Protestant Reformation’s elevation of Scripture to a position of the sole source of authority in the Christian’s life? Don’t these pithy statements represent the best of what it means to adhere to the doctrine of sola Scriptura?

No, they don’t. In fact they unfortunately represent a common misunderstanding of what sola Scriptura means.

Where does one go for authority? In whom do we place our trust? The Church? Tradition? Scripture? The Pope? These represent important questions that are normally not understood outside the perspective of individual traditions.

There are essentially five views that exist in the church today concerning the important issue of authority.

1. Dual-source theory

Belief that Tradition, represented by the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, is infallible and equal to Scripture as a basis for doctrine; the Church itself is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice since it must define and interpret Scripture and Tradition.

Adherents: Roman Catholics

Notice that there is one complete deposit of faith, given by Christ to the Apostles. This one deposit is transmitted by two sources, written tradition (Scripture) and unwritten tradition. Notice also the dotted line as Scripture moves from the “Age of the Apostles” to the “Age of the Church.” This represents that the Scriptures were not complete in canonized form (all the books were not decided upon) until the forth century. The Roman Catholic church believes itself responsible for the interpretation of both written and unwritten tradition. Because of their belief that the Holy Spirit protects the Roman Catholic church from error, they believe that they are the ultimate and final authority for the Christian. This is why this view is often referred to as sola ecclesia (”the church alone”).

2. Prima Scriptura

Belief that the Body of Christ has two separate sources of authority for faith and practice: 1) the Scriptures and 2) Tradition. Scripture is the primary source for authority, but by itself it is insufficient for all matters of faith and practice. Tradition also contains essential elements needed for the productive Christian life.

Adherents: Some Roman Catholics (an alternate view)

Like the previous, the prima Scriptura view has an abiding dual-source of authority. Notice how the dotted line representing Tradition continues on in this model. This is illustrative of Tradition’s continued subordinate influence within the Church. For the prima Scriptura model, Tradition must be continually “kept in check” by Scripture. If there is ever a conflict between Tradition and the Scriptures, the Scriptures are to correct and interpret Tradition. Scripture, according to this model, is the primary and final authority in all matters. According to this view, the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and is, therefore, “materially sufficient.” But it is not “formally sufficient,” since it must have an infallible interpreter, the Church.

3. Regula Fidei

Lit. “Rule of faith.” Belief that tradition is an infallible “summary” of Scripture passed on through apostolic succession. Ultimately, there is only one source of revelation, but two sources of authority. In other words, Tradition is Scripture.

Adherents: Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants

Notice how the dotted line representing Tradition continues on in this model. Like the previous, this is illustrative of Tradition’s continued subordinate influence within the Church. For the regula fidei model, however, tradition equals Scripture in an infallible summary form (example: Nicene creed). The Church carries the correct interpretation of Scripture but does not add anything new to it (unlike the previous two). Therefore, all interpretation of Scripture must agree with the interpretation that has been consistently held within the Church—the regula fidei or ”rule of faith.”

4. Sola Scriptura

Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures.

Adherents: Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals

Notice that the only difference between the sola Scriptura view and the regula fide view is that in the sola Scriptura view tradition is not infallible. It is very important to realize that advocates of sola Scriptura would believe that there were two sources of authority for the first 300–400 years of the Church. Like the previous view, tradition would be understood as a summary of what was written in Scripture that had always been accepted by the universal Church. Unlike the previous view, this summary is not infallible.

At this time, Scripture was in the process of being recognized (canonized) and the teachings of the apostles which had been passed on through word of mouth (tradition) was only reliable for the first 100 years (or so) of Church history. The majority of Scripture (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline corpus which makes up at least 80 percent of the NT) was accepted as authoritative by A.D. 200, if not earlier. At the same time, the teachings of the apostles that were being passed on through word of mouth was becoming increasingly obscure and unreliable. Once the New Testament had been circulated throughout the Church, and once the canon had been recognized, the Church became totally reliant upon the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) for ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice. Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the accepted, albeit fallible, regula fidei of the early church as represented in the early creeds and councils.

As an important and related sidenote, there has been much recent discussion among Protestants and Orthodox concerning the similarities in the two traditions’ view of authority. In fact, mutual consent has been attained and confessions of misunderstanding given from both sides. Notice here the agreed statement from The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 involving Anglicans and Orthodox:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message” (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51.

As well, notice this agreement between Lutherans and Orthodox:

“Regarding the relation of Scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula sola Scriptura was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the Church . . . against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the Church.” —Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue: The Agreed Statements 1985–1989. (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1992), 11.

5. Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura

Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

Adherents: Radical Reformers, Fundamentalists, Restorationist Churches

This is not a formal position but a pejorative designation of a practical one. It represents the unfortunate position of many evangelical or fundamental Protestants who misunderstand sola Scriptura believing that it means that the ideal place for believers to find authority and interpret Scripture is to do so in a historical vacuum, disregarding any tradition that might influence and bind their thinking. Not only does this undermine the Holy Spirit’s role in the lives of believers of the past, but it is a position of arrogance, elevating individual reason to the position of final authority. It also disregards the fact that it is impossible to interpret in a vacuum.

Protestants have many authorities in their lives. Whether it be parents, government, the church, or traditions. The doctrine of sola Scriptura does not mean that we don’t have any other authorities or even sources of revelation, but that the Scripture alone is the final and only infallible source—it is the ultimate source.

Just for good measure so that I cannot be accused of not trying to get in trouble, here is how I would chart some traditions and denominations.

Next, I will begin to give a more formal defense of sola Scriptura.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Lisa Robinson over at Theologica has written a great post as a former Pentecostal I appreciate, considering my last post on conversionism, how she approached this with grace and tact. (I have posted this without her knowledge, but she is a friend and I am sure she wouldn’t mind.)

I am not a Pentecostal/Charismatic. I used to be though. But I dove into a course of study that had me re-examining some things I believed, particularly related to the sign gifts, speaking in tongues and validity of modern day prophets and apostles. I also discovered that extreme fringes of this movement have promoted some things that I don’t believe correspond to biblical truth, i.e. word of faith, new revelations, etc.

Given the direction my biblical studying has brought me thus far, the natural tendency is to vehemently oppose any vestiges of this movement. The tendency, I think, is to regret that time was wasted in a movement that I no longer am in alignment with. However, I have discovered that while I have come to reject some of the pentecostal/charismatic teachings, I do welcome and embrace others. I do cherish and appreciate the time and experiences I have gained. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I also think it’s interesting that God keeps bringing pentecostal folks into my life. It is humbling.

So I thought I would express my ode to Pentecostalism, those characteristics about the movement and its people that I have come to respect, appreciate and maintain in my heart as I continue on this journey.

1) Pentecostals know how to pray: It’s not that non-pentecostals don’t but I have found an affinity towards prayer that pentecostals have, all night if need be. Pray without ceasing, pray for governing authorities, pray for perseverance, pray for each other…that is what we are commended to do.

2) Pentecostals know how to praise: These folks are not ashamed to lift up hands, shout and dance. Praising God is what we were designed to do. David danced before the Lord and maybe so should we, considering the Spirit that dwells within us. No need to be boring or rigid.

3) Pentecostals expect things to happen: Sure this is part and parcel of the full continuation of gifts as represented in the early church. But I have to admire the heart behind it, which says we will not limit God and how He wants to move. Its a heart that says we expect great things from God. Considering the transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, righteous and sovereign God whom we serve, who has demonstrated His mindfulness and love for us through the cross, who has communicated His power to us through His word, should we not expect Him to move in mighty ways? I know I do.

Yes, these are characteristics worth pondering and worth appreciating.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

In the last post on this series I discussed why people leave Christianity, focusing on intellectual reasons. This post will focus on theological reasons why people leave Christianity.

Let me quickly remind you of some important prerequisites to understanding where I am coming from and where I am not coming from. I am talking about people who leave Christianity, not simply those who leave the Church. Both are very related, but one evidences a more serious departure while the other can be one step on the road to departure. Please understand that I am a Calvinist who believes in the ultimate perseverance of true Christians. But this does not give me a “get-out-of-jail-free” card with regard to this issue. I still have to deal with it from a human perspective of responsibility, even if I believe that God is in sovereign control of such things. In other words, the response, ”The reason why people leave the faith is because they were never truly called,” may be theologically true, but it is often not only unhelpful but it can be dismissive of our responsibility as Christians in the discharge of the Gospel and the understanding of seriousness of the problem that we face.

One other point of importance needs to be made. I understand that people leave the faith for other reasons besides those of an intellectual and theological nature. It is simply that in my experience and studies, I have found that these two factor in most predominately and form the basis for other reasons of departure.

Theological Reasons: Casualties by Friendly-Fire

Thesis: We have the tendency, left without theological discipleship and accountability, to make God into who we think he ought to be. When that version of him fails, it is not as if the true version has failed, but only the version we created. Therefore, we have not really left God in a proper sense, but we have left the God we made. Sure, this God may be called “Jesus” and he may have died on a cross for our sins, but, for some people, these form secondary characteristics that are not foundational.

The lack of theological discipleship in the Church has created casualties by friendly-fire.

Let me explain.

The “My will be done” type of God named “Jesus”

Imagine a person who finds God through some sort of deathbed experience. They may have been terminally ill and then they pray to God for the first time in their lives. Suddenly, they are healed. Based upon this, they accept a version of God who heals when trouble comes. Ask and you shall receive—according to your will. Their theology may allow for the name “Jesus”, the atonement for sins, and a belief that Christ is God, but they only believe this because God healed them. But what happens if they never grow with regards to their understanding of who God is, his sovereignty to take a life or to spare a life, the ultimate hope of the resurrection, and many other foundational theological issues? What happens when their spouse gets sick or their child has cancer and their version of God does not come to the rescue? Often, these will become disillusioned and skeptical of the God who brought about the previous miracle. If their belief in God is based on his healing intervention according to their will, then this belief no longer has a basis. Therefore, God no longer has a basis.

The personal promise maker God named “Jesus”

My mother went through a theological disillusionment when my sister Angie committed suicide four years ago. She wanted so badly to be assured that Angie was going to be okay and that the depression would not ultimately take her life, so she read the Bible the way that she wanted to read it. She found a passage that, in her mind, said Angie was not going to kill herself. It was in the Psalms. The problem was that this passage said nothing about Angie and gave no promises concerning her life. But my mother was determined enough to find a garuntee to alleviate her fear. She trusted in God and “Took him at his word.” When Angie did take her life, my mother was totally disillusioned with God. She never left Christianity, but there was a version of God that failed her. This version did not exist. God had made no such promises and was not obligated to fulfill promises never made.

The “I am primarily concerned about your success and stability” God named “Jesus”

This is a very common type of God today, especially with the health and wealth Gospel. The health and wealth Gospel essentially creates a God named “Jesus” who died on the cross, but who’s primary purpose in existence is to make sure all the bills are paid and everyone in your family is healthy, including you. Pain and suffering and financial troubles are a sign that you do not have enough faith. This type of God lives and breaths to make you successful and stable. Yet this is not the God of the Bible either. When you do suffer, when the bills cannot be paid, does God fail or simply your version of him?

The “I am about your glory” God named “Jesus”

Although this is a variation of the others, often we create God in such a way that he is concerned only about you and your temporal gain, whatever that may be. I see this often. Sadly, I have seen this from ministers who are being trained for ministry. It was about them and their success. It did not matter whether it was the success of their ministry or their overcoming temptation. God was about prioritizing their glory. When their glory was not attained, where do they go? Their verion of God failed and they seek glory elsewhere.

The “Jesus” who said the world was flat

There are also those who accept Christianity based upon false requirements for Christianity to be true. For example, there are some who believe and teach that inerrancy is essential to Christianity. Others believe that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is central to the Christian faith. Some believe and teach that true Christians will not ever struggle with homosexuality. And we all know the story of institutionalized Christianity who said that the world was flat and anathematized any who would dare to disagree. This form of legalism creates boundaries that are unbiblical and become part of the Christianity that people often accept. But what happens when a person does continue to struggle with homosexuality? What happens when they are convinced by a college professor that there is a historical error in the Bible? What happens when the Pope says something wrong? What happens when Galileo’s telescope indicates that the world is round? They can either surrender their intellectual integrity and believe according to these “Christian” boundaries, or they can find another option besides Christianity.

The problem is that these versions of Christianity do not represent true Christianity. If they leave, did they really leave Christ or the version that their bad theology provided.

My question is this: If we allow people to remain undiscipled “Christians,” what do we expect? Are we about making disciples or making converts? If we continue in the same vain, we should expect more disillusionment, more doubt, and more leavers.

We must teach people that God is God, his promises are his prerogative, and we do not dare add to his requirements for Christianity. We must get back to theological discipleship.

In summary, the church needs to look long and hard at its current Gospel discharge methods and see that the lack of intellectual viability presented and the bad theology allowed, form the bed that we have made. From a human perspecive, we may be suffering such loses due to friendly-fire. We need to make sure that if people are leaving Christianity, they are not doing so for all the wrong reasons.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

From Daniel Eaton at Theologica:

I know this is a touchy subject (no pun intended), but are Christians, as a whole, sexually oppressed? Recently, I came across this article on an Apologetics news feed that I watch and most of what is in this blog post is from some posts on the topic that I made on another forum.

Is a more conservative lifestyle in the area of “marital relations” “more Christian“? Or are Christians free to do anything consenting partners want without guilt and a lot (most?) of our limitations in this area more cultural? Is it a sin to go against our cultural/traditional beliefs about these things when we have no real Biblical basis for it or against it? Can we feel guilt or shame over something when it isn’t the Holy Spirit inducing it, but our culture? And if it is just from our culture, should we follow it or are we free to overcome it? The news story I linked to above prompted me to think about these questions.

Here are my thoughts. Something tells me that if an accurate interpretation and translation of Song Of Solomon were to be published under another name, the average church would protest its inclusion in the local library. It would be called porn or, at the very least, seen as “dirty” erotica. We generally don’t like to think of those kind of passages in the Bible. The Bible is purity, and we *know* that that “dirty stuff” can’t be pure. But upon closer reflection, I believe that most of our taboos related to the marriage bed are cultural, not Biblical.

This is a topic that the Bible spends a lot more talking about than the average pastor. I think we’ve gone so far into the direction of limited pleasures that are never discussed and only partaken of in the dark that it is one of the reasons why Christian marriages are in just as much trouble as non-Christian ones. At one end of the spectrum, we have a liberalism and “alternative lifestyles” that is unhealthy and unbiblical in many ways. Yet when we go so far in the opposite direction that it, in effect, limits intimacy, we have become just as legalistic and oppressed as any Muslim in a Hijab.

A good Christian marriage should promote intimacy on many different levels, physical and otherwise. When Churches don’t discuss it, it suggests that it is wrong and “dirty”. It propagates bad cultural ideas of what a good marriage is. If the “S” word is mentioned at all in church, it is done in a negative connotation. We preach strongly against sex before marriage. Bold youth pastors may even get into what acts that it may or may not include (because of some of the things kids are now thinking isn’t sex). But more often than not, they would be criticized for doing so by parents that just want someone to babysit their kids. We preach strongly and frequently against adultery and lust and porn. But when marriage is discussed at all, it is in generalities about “relationship” and “communication”. But if we actually followed the Bible’s example, wouldn’t we NOT skip from Ecclesiastes to Isaiah in our Bible study and teaching. If the Bible is going to devote one entire book on the subject of the love that a person can have for their spouse and the desires it produces, why is a sermon on sex viewed with a motivation of doing it “because it draws people” when done occasionally in a very circumspect manner? If discussing physical attraction was so was “dirty” or “worldly”, and only for “drawing people”, why is there an inspired book of the Bible that focuses so much on it?

Ultimately, in my opinion, I believe Christians have drawn boundaries as to what is “dirty and sinful” versus what is allowed and even encouraged in the confines of a Christian marriage that it is hurting our marriages. We are too Puritanical in our zeal *not* to be seen as worldly. When we are *so* conservative that *ANY* movement at all from that position is considered becoming more worldly, I have to wonder the Biblical basis for that kind of extreme position that still keeps Song of Solomon in the Bible.

I’m not saying that we should have sex-ed from the pulpit for all the kids to hear. That would be gratuitous. My point is that it isn’t talked about at all. Even on weekend Marriage Retreats that I have been on, they were announced at church, but sponsored by other organizations. And they didn’t get into anything that would even slightly resemble gazing on your spouse with desire, much less what the Biblical limits are to physically expressing that side of our humanity. It was all “romance” and “communication” and “parenting” and personality types and so forth. Nothing wrong with that. It is needed as well. But not even in the frank single-gender break-out sessions did they ever get anywhere near as open as what is talked about in other, less-Christian venues. Every guy in the room would, I’m sure, have loved a frank discussion on the topic. But it is guidance that Christian couples seem forced to get somewhere else.

By totally avoiding the information, it leads to a “missionary mentality” (if you get my drift) and the only source of information is the “world” and we know that it has to be “dirty” if it is from the world and not something that cannot even be discussed in an adult Sunday School class. Most youth groups are open enough to talk about what the limits are for the unmarried, why is it that when we get married there isn’t something equivalent? It’s a beautiful thing. Why turn it into a taboo subject? When the church is ashamed to even broach the subject, again in a circumspect manner, it makes the whole subject appear shameful. In a way, it is almost Gnostic – the physical becomes bad. We *say* it is OK, but heaven forbid anyone finds out Christians do something for fun and not merely for procreation. And heaven forbid someone finds out that you did some reading somewhere to find out how much of “it” it OK and what crosses Biblical lines!

A lot of people go to the marriage bed with all kinds of hangups because of guilt that they have over things that they should have no guilt over. For example, my wife went to a Christian college. One of the dorm matrons there taught the female students that all nudity was a dirty thing. They were told that, even after marriage, they should always stay covered and modest. Being unclothed was OK if you absolutely had to be, but you better make sure the lights are off! The idea was that if you didn’t stay modest at all times that it was being “loose” and a “temptress” and that if it caused your husband to have impure thoughts that you’ve led him into sin as well. But aren’t husbands supposed to think thoughts like that about their wife? Needless to say, I/we take that as an unhealthy approach to the subject. It causes guilt and shame where there should be none. It puts up barriers to intimacy that shouldn’t be there. In effect, I believe that a lot of Christians have been actively taught (as in this example) or been led to believe by what they haven’t been taught that in the spectrum of marital activities that the line between right and wrong is way over on one end of the spectrum. To even think of adding something different into a rigid routine becomes something “kinky” and “worldly”. I believe the inference (mostly from silence on the topic) that marriages can’t be fun and adventurous (within Biblical limits) leads a lot of men into getting hooked on porn instead of addicted to their wife.

But, I’m from the land that brought us Southern Belles and petticoats. I could be wrong. There is a certain level of modesty and propriety that is still deep in the cultural psychy of the South. And the more the culture changes away from that, the more the “good” people cling to the propriety of yesteryear. It may not be the same in other places. Here in the Bible Belt though, most Christian ladies that I know would die of shame if one of their friends from church found out that they had purchased a revealing piece of lingerie from somewhere. And the activity on the church grapevine “prayer chain” would be enough to light up Vegas for a night if someone actually saw the head deacon’s wife in Victoria’s Secret! I think if the church was a bit more open to discussing the subject, you wouldn’t find so many Christian men addicted to porn and so many unhappy Christian marriages. It’s great to say that married couples should satisfy each other, but typically you end up with different interpretations of what all that can/should entail and it becomes a source of stress instead of pleasure.

People need to know the physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological dangers and limits to certain behavior. We get it drilled into our heads a “don’t do NOTHING!” mantra prior to Marriage. *Everything* is seen as wrong. It’s all “dirty”. But once you get married, *some* stuff is OK. But “some” is a relative term, and the church, which hasn’t been bashful in preaching “all is bad” to the unsaved youth student, is totally absent when it comes to telling them what part of “some” is good or evil in a committed Christian marriage. As such, it all remains “shady” and left as one huge gray area. One spouse may think one thing is OK and the other has been taught something different. There is so much “gray area” that good Christian couples are afraid to venture into anything “adventurous” or different for fear of being in sin, and have guilt over even thinking about it.

The bottom line is that we spend a great deal of time in parenting discussing the need for boundaries. Where the boundaries are clear, there is more freedom. Kids in a fenced yard take advantage of the whole area. Kids who are told not to cross the property line, but don’t really know or can’t agree where it is, stay close to the house. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be fences. I’m saying that the church is great at building fences and yet, in this area, tell married couples that the “gate” is now open but “don’t stray too far”. Not knowing what “far” is, we stay close enough to the old fence to touch it. That isn’t freedom. The church owes it to the marriages of its members to do better than that. They should not be embarrassed or shamed for seeing the green grass on the other side of the fence and wanting to take a stroll in it, but being afraid because they don’t know where the boundaries are. And considering the dangers of even thinking certain thing in this area, there is a lot of guilt and shame that people have for even bringing these subjects up in case they were thinking sinfully. It’s a huge gray area that the church doesn’t really shine a light on.

Why is it that the church seems to have no problem with all the “thou shalt not’s” and fences before and outside marriage, but is eerily silent about what is and is not permissible within the confines of the Christian marriage bed? Is that a good thing? Or, do you agree with me that the church needs to supply some information on this topic before people go to the world for it? Is it a sin to go against your conscience about something that is only based on cultural norms (do we even still have those?) when there is no Biblical reason for it? What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear them…

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Spending another week on Patmos has been a great joy. It has occurred to me that I have not given you much of a detailed look at what it’s like to spend a day here, though. We walk up to the monastery after we park our car about 400 yards downhill. We’re all dressed in black (including long sleeve shirts) to honor the monks, even though it can get quite warm here. We enter the courtyard and receive stares from dozens of pairs of eyes belonging to faces from all over the world. (People wonder if we are priests. Two folks from an internationally known institution pontificated while we were a few feet away that we must be priests from a different sect, not knowing that we spoke English. We made the gentle correction.) We then enter the subterranean library to do our work. There we will be from 9.30 am until 1 pm.

The electricity is not particularly reliable and it’s very easy to trip the circuits. We cannot plug all of our computers and cameras into sockets, so we must bring batteries to backup at least one of the cameras. After breaking the circuits multiple times from minor infractions, we finally realized that we had to pull the plug to get the work done.

At about 9.45 am, the assistant librarian tells us that coffee is served. We go to the foyer and enjoy a cup of Greek coffee (non-filtered, with all the grounds in the bottom of the cup). Fifteen minutes later we’re back at the job. At 1 pm, we pack up for the day and exit the library. But our time at the monastery is not yet over.

Every day just before 1 pm, a priest rings the monastery bell, signaling that lunch is served in the dining room. Although there may be over 100 people visiting the monastery at that time, only a few are invited to the meal. This week has been especially busy with extra guests: two paleographers from Italy, and two more from Thessaloniki, have eaten with the monks, along with the four of us from CSNTM. The exact number of places are set. Only men are allowed in the dining room. We all file in and stand behind our chairs, standing in silence. The priests and monks (about half a dozen) meander in and stand behind their chairs. Finally, the abbot comes in, rings a small table bell, and prays over the meal. Then we all sit and eat while another priest reads ancient letters from the desert fathers. (Last year, he read from St. Chrysostom.) About 12-15 minutes into the meal, the abbot pounds his cane on the floor twice, signaling that the reading may cease and the priest may join those who are dining.

On normal days, the abbot will chime the table bell several minutes later, signaling the end of the meal. But on Fridays, things are different. Wednesdays and Fridays are fast days in the Orthodox world (a tradition that goes back to the Didache), and this means that meat and milk products are not allowed, as well as dessert (except for fruit) and wine. Wine is served with every lunch, so to not have it is a bit unusual. However, the wine carafes are still placed on the table. On Wednesday, those who are sensitive to Orthodox traditions will not drink the wine, even though they have the opportunity to do so.

On Fridays, things are a little different. A few minutes later, the abbot chimes the table bell once again. This signals that the fast is over: the priests start pouring the wine, which signals that the guests may do the same. A few minutes after that, the abbot chimes the bell one more time, then all the priests and then the guests rise to their feet. The abbot prays a concluding prayer, and the priests all file out. The abbot and one other priest stand at the door while the rest of the priests and monks walk out of the room, with head bowed. Then the guests walk out, also with head bowed (or they should be!). It does not matter how much one has eaten, the meal is over when the abbot rings the final chime. (However, last year the abbot told us that we may stay to eat more and were not required to leave with the rest. We said that we wished to honor the monastery and not be singled out for special privileges, so we have always exited the dining room with the monks and priests.)

Very interesting meal time! And not one for idle chit-chat (or any chit-chat, for that matter). We are there to be nourished in body and soul by the healthful meals and the reading of saints of old.

After our time at the monastery, we spent a few hours wrestling with where to go next since we finished our work here sooner than we had budgeted for. We decided to go to the island of Lesbos. There are eight monasteries there that have New Testament manuscripts. Please pray for travel mercies and open doors as we try to get into the monasteries to at least look at the manuscripts and, we hope, photograph them as well. We are all a bit weary from hauling all our luggage around, but we have two more weeks of work to do. Already the expedition has been a great success, and the rest of our time is up to us to use wisely. We are hoping to get into several sites in Greece before returning to the States. Pray for open doors!

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“Converstionism.” This is one of the few marks of Evangelicalism spoken of by Evangelical historian Mark Noll. Evangelicals believe that people must experience a sincere personal conversion to Jesus Christ. This is a hallmark of Christianity—to be a convert.

Please understand that what follows in no way detracts from this. Conversionism is essential to Evangelicalism. What follows serves as a warning about the dangers that often exist as a person’s conversion from any position to another interacts with their witness and theological integrity.

I was in a spiritual conversation with a gentleman the other day. At times, the conversation became heated. I don’t mind heated conversation or debate so long as it is respectful, honest, and intentional. At one point in the conversation, the gentleman accused me of not being able to see outside of my “Evangelical lenses” that tainted my ability to accept the truth—his version of it of course.

Did you get that. Let me pause and for a bit of repetition. He believed I could not understand because (let me paraphrase):

“You cannot see outside of your Evangelical tainted lenses!!!”

Ouch! And what lenses are you wearing?

“None. I am a postmodern. We are the only ones that don’t wear lenses.”

Interesting. Can I have a pair of those?

It seems that this is becoming increasingly common. In fact, it has happened to me three times in the last few weeks (which is why I bring it up here). The assumption is that one is not a careful thinker because they already believe according to a certain tradition. And you know what that means: it is not you believing, but your tradition believing for you.

Isn’t this odd? One cannot see the truth so long as he already thinks he has the truth, but once he does not think he has the truth, he can finally see the truth? While I do believe that there is a hint of truth to this, it can and is often taken to a self-referentially absured extreme. As well, many of us in the postmodern world like to use it as conversation stoppers when we lack any other recourse. When in doubt and you have no answer, just say this: “You cannot see because your committment perspective blinds you.”

In each of these cases spoken of above, the accuser, interestingly, was a convert from Evangelicalism. None of them were atheists. In fact, all were still Christians (usually of the emerging variety). One thing was clear: they did not like Evangelicalism. They were bitter about its former promises by which they now believe themselves to have been misled.

The problem is that the supposed objectivity that they think they have attained has become their master. They fail to realize that their conversion, irregardless of its justification, may have actually tainted their view more. They have fooled themselves into thinking that to take off the sunglasses of their former perspective means that they are wearing no sunglasses at all.

In reality, we all wear sunglasses that taints our individual perspective. There is no real option that allows us to see things perfectly, the way they really are.

From what I have seen, converts are sometimes the most unable to see things with a balanced perspective. Because of their belief that their previous faith commitments betrayed them, they approach issues as “enlightened” warriors against those former allegiances. The problem is that they normally wear their bitterness on their sleeve and this further taints the glasses that they think they are not wearing.

The issue is not so much about right or wrong, but about being able to think with integrity. It may involve converting from atheism to Christianity, Christianity to atheism, Evangelical to emerging, Arminianism to Calvinism, or a belief in inerrancy to a denial of inerrancy. I have seen this militant conversion attitude much with regard to former dispensationalists who were “delivered” from the “lies” of the dispensationalism. It is interesting to see their attitude. They often have an absolute dismissive spirit toward any argument that is put forth for dispensationalism. “Oh, I took off those glasses. In fact, I smashed them on the ground. You should too.” But what glasses did you put on after you took these off? “The glasses of truth.” Oh, that is nice. Was there nothing good about the old ones? Can they not still contribute to your understanding in any way at all? At all? Are they completely invaluable? Completely? Is everyone wearing them as a duped idiot? Everyone? That is the way you make it sound since your enlightenment.

Calvinists who convert from Arminianism are also good examples. I am sad to say that we can be the most imbalanced of all. Suddenly, Arminians are absolute losers with regard to theological integrity. All things Arminian are not far from all things Satan. Many of these converts make it their life’s goal to correct the error of Arminianism. And they think they are the most qualified to do so because they used to be one!

I have also seen this attitude quite a bit from former Roman Catholics. These newly enlightened Protestants have a mission of hatred. If this mission converts others, great. But the mission of hatred must go on either way. Misrepresentation, ironically, abounds in these circumstances. They feel as if being a convert gives them a pass to say anything they want. “Don’t tell me what they believe, I used to be one!”

To the credit of Roman Catholics, from my experience, I have seen much balance and grace from converts to their tradition from Protestantism. From what I have seen, they don’t exchange their Protestant glasses for anti-Protestant glasses. They retain an appreciation for their former tradition. Most specifically, I think of the prolific conversions of Francis Beckwith, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreeft. (Note: this is from my experience. I realize that you may have experienced things differently.)

What I am trying to say is that when one converts from on tradition to another, this does not necessarily mean they can speak objectively about the issues. In fact, they often exchange one pair of glasses for its antonymous rival with a special feature of non-appreciation, hatred, and misrepresentation.

I think that we all need to recognize the glasses we wear. We also need to see that when we set down one pair, we always pick up another. There is no objective observer. The emerger of all people ought to know this! This does not discount our ability to discover truth, but it does help us to be more productive, balanced, and realistic in our discoveries.

With regard to converts—especially those from Evangelicalism to some form of emerging: I don’t challenge the legitimacy of any conversion here (that is not my purpose), but I do challenge you to understand that sometimes your conversion can work against your influence. Why? Because it is easy to lose perspective. When I see an emerger who has converted from Evangelicalism and has what seems to be a passionate hatred for Evangelicalism, I tune them out. I can’t help it. Imbalance is something that I have little toleration for. Was Evangelicalism that bad? Aren’t there any good qualities that you still appreciate? Are you working to redeem it or destroy it? Was it that easy to move from love to hate?

If the often said definition of an Evangelical is simply a “nice fundamentalist,” I am afraid the definition of an emerger is quickly becoming an “embittered Evangelical.” No, it is not that simple. And yes, it is sometimes that simple.

• We need to recognize the relative merits of the various positions.
• We also need to understand that sometimes conversion does not have to be absolute.
• Sometimes things are not an either/or, but a both/and.
• Either way, converts need to convert with thoughtfulness, making the most of their experience and the way it might be used to further the kingdom of God.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“Monday morning blues.” That is what it is sometimes called. Most ministers know what I am talking about even if they cannot find a safe place to admit it. It describes that time just after the high of Sunday ministry when pastors come crashing down into a spiritual low. Pastoral depression is more common than most people realize.

There was a conference recently—a pastors’ conference—where the topic of “pastoral depression” was spoken on in one of the sessions. Believe it or not, it was the one session that had standing room only. Out of the dozens of topics presented, you could not find a place in the spiritual topic of depression. It must have hit on something that few of those in ministry know how to deal with but are relieved when they find solace in the surprising commonality among their kind.

Depressed ministers?

Charles Spurgeon, it is said, often used to preach on Sunday and spend the rest of the week in a state of depression. Martin Luther was as emotionally unstable as they come, wasn’t he? Even Elijah wanted to die just after he brought fire down from heaven. Time will fail us if we speak of Noah, Abraham, David, and Peter. The emotionally unstable among the godly?

But, but, but . . . I thought that ministers were preachers of joy, hope, truth, and contentment. Isn’t depression the very antinomy of such?

I know that I have spent some time conversing with the dark side. The spiritual highs crash you like a drug. Don’t talk to me the day after something I have been preparing for is brought to a completion. I don’t care if I just preached a sermon or lesson on the joy of the Lord, don’t talk to me. You will be discouraged. If it was a sermon about hope and perseverance, don’t look to me for an example—especially the next day. Besides, you never know whether I spoke on that issue out of self-therapeutic selfishness.

I get spiritually tired. I need to crash.

But these depressions, these downs, these times of “woe-is-me,” while present, will not rule pastors everyday. Sometimes the fog clears and the clouds depart. Catch us on one of those days.

Here, let me help:

Sundays are usually good.

Certainly not Monday. The hole is dug and some of us are still digging. 

Tuesdays are bad because we are depressed and feeling really guilty about being depressed on Monday.

Wednesdays we have begun to reason ourselves out of it.

Thursdays we are in third gear.

Fridays we are ready to be martyred for the faith. Don’t talk to us then, because on Fridays we think YOU should be martyred for the faith as well.

Saturdays are full of stress which does not give room for depression. But the stress might miscommunicate biblical principles as well.

Sundays are good.

Aurthur Pink said that this type of ministerial depression goes to show us that “the best of men are but men at best.” That goes for everyone, pastor or not.

Some of this was written with tongue-in-cheek. However, there often is a unique type of depression that is somewhat unique to those in ministry. I think that people should be aware of this.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Catholic apologetics is more robust today than it has been in the recent past. Since Rome has given more freedom of exploration and discover along with the encouragement for Catholics to study the Scriptures, there have been many Catholic apologists preparing Catholics to defend the faith. Despite our temptation in today’s world to let bygones be bygones, the engagement between Protestants and Catholics must go on for the differences are still relevant.

One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics through the years is the view of the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. Catholics, along with the Orthodox Church, have traditionally believed that the Eucharist represents the centerpiece of our worship to God. Catholics call the celebration of the Eucharist “Mass.” They believe that when properly administered, the bread and the wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. This is called “transubstantiation” because the “substance” of the elements “transform” into Christ’s body and blood. Most Protestants rejected this view of the Eucharist opting for either a memorial view or a spiritual view of the Lord’s supper (Lutherans believe in a somewhat mediating position called “consubstantiation”).

Why is this important? Because historic Protestantism has often charged the Catholic church with idolatry, believing that they have turned God into an idol of bread and wine, worshiping the elements without, indeed, contrary to, a scriptural basis. Catholics, on the other hand (and this is important), have elevated the celebration of the Mass and the belief in Transubstantiation to an essential of Christianity. In other words, according to Catholic dogma, if you do not celebrate the Mass as they believe it to be understood, you are in great danger of the fires of Hell, since missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin.

With the recent rise of modern Catholic apologetics, Catholic lay people are being trained to answer some of the more difficult objections to their faith that Protestants bring forward. The two primary areas that Catholic apologetics is centering on are issues with the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. We are focusing on Transubstantiation here. Not only this, but I want to focus on one particular argument that is being put forth more and more in defense of Transubstantiation that comes form John 6.

Here is the passage:

John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

The Basic argument is this: If Christ was not speaking literally when He said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” why did they respond by saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” If Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” just a misunderstood saying. According to the Catholic apologist, if Christ was speaking symbolically, Christ could have—indeed would have—corrected them and said, “This is not really hard. You must understand I am only speaking symbolically of eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” But He did not. He let them walk away. The Catholic apologist will often emphasis this fact and declare it to be incontestable evidence that Christ was speaking literally about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Thus, this becomes a primary defense of transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in Mass for eternal life.

Karl Keating, a popular Catholic Apologist and President of Catholic Answers, says:

“There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct misunderstanding, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).

While I respect and appreciate the attempts of some very fine Catholic apologists to defend difficult positions and believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.

Why? For two primary reasons:

1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.

The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.

John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He did not entrust himself to his listeners. Why? I suppose some wanted a king who would provide literal food for them like Moses did in the wilderness and they left when it became clear that He was not going to do the same. Some thought that He was speaking about actually eating his flesh and blood, I violation of the Mosaic Law, and they left. But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples

a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”

Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.

b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”

Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).

c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he?’” (John 4:33).

This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.

Now we come to John 6. John’s readers should know by now that Christ speaks symbolically in such statements as these. We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to take Christ literally in John 6.

Would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers whose heart he already knew?

“For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).

“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40).

It does not seem so. This was not His modus operandi.

2. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.

John 20:30-31 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers, they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood His teachings and intentions. A very common theme in John and a very common mistake today.

In short, before you start paddling across the Tiber, set an anchor and think seriously about the exegetical and theological viability of the Catholic interpretation of John 6.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” These are the words of obscure reformer Rupertus Meldenius (often wrongly attributed to others). They form somewhat of an Evangelical credo. Evangelicals have traditionally believed that there are certain doctrines that form the core of the Christian faith. They are called “cardinal doctrines.” They are what we might call the sine quo non—the “without which, not”—of the Christian faith. In other words, there are certain doctrines that when denied, by definition, evidence a person does not have the basic core beliefs that must be present in the truly regenerate.

Included in this credo is the belief that there are certain doctrines that are “non-essential” or non-cardinal. These are those that, while important to varying degrees, are not damnable in the proper sense. About these doctrines there can be legitimate disagreement within Christianity. We are to have liberty with regard to such doctrines. This means that we are not to properly or formally divide over them. We are to have grace.

This all sounds really nice. I have heard this touted from the Evangelical mountain-tops for quite some time. The difficulty always comes when we begin to discuss one key question: What are the essentials? Who decides? The Pope? Your local church pastor? The SBC? My private interpretation of the Scripture? Alas, with such a question, the divisions start all over.

In essentials, unity. Sounds nice, but impractical. Right?

I don’t think we have to be so pessimistic about this. I actually think that there are certain criteria that most thoughtful people can agree constitutes the foundation of our faith—the essentials. I have them narrowed to three in no certain order. It is important to note that I am persuaded that all three must be present for a doctrine to be considered essential.

1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation?

This first criteria is one of historical agreement. This is a form of “consensual faith” (consensus fidelium). This criteria of universal consensus follows the canon of Saint Vincent of Lérins (died c. 445): quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.” In other words, an essential cannot be something new like the doctrine of the Rapture. Neither can it be something that has lacked historic unity by Christians across time like the perpetual virginity of Mary. As well, it cannot have limited geographic representation, like certain Eastern litergy. The question here is Have all Christians of all time everywhere believed it?

2. Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture?

One of the principles that the Reformers sought to communicate is that of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. The Reformers did not believe that all of the Scripture was clear (a misunderstanding of the doctrine of perspicuity), but that all that is essential for salvation is clear. In short, if something in Scripture is obscure, then it is not essential. Augustine even held to such a principle stating that one must not build doctrines on obscure passages (On Christian Doctrine). For example, one should not build essential doctrine on what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) are or what it means to be “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). Unfortunately, both the Catholics and the Mormons have done just that. If a passage is obscure, no essential doctrine can be derived from it.

3. Explicity: Does the passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential?

The Scriptures speak about a great many things, but they are often explicit with regards to that which is of essential importance. For example, Paul says to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4; emphasis mine). The “of first importance” tells us that Christ’s death and resurrection “for our sins,” from Paul’s perspective, is an essential component of Christianity. Without such, according to Paul, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12ff). As well, the Gospel of John speaks about the importance of faith. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).

Again, these three criteria I propose must all be present. If one or more is lacking concerning a particular doctrine, I believe that it is not possible for one to legitimately argue for its core essentiality. As well, all three feed off each other and are somewhat self-regulating. In other words, if someone doubts whether something is clear in Scripture, all he or she has to do is look to history.  If something is not clear in the Scripture, it will not find that it passes the test of historicity. This is why it is of vital importance that Christians not only be good exegetes, but also good historians.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

In my last blog, I began a discussion on religious pluralism by first making observations about religious diversity. We mentioned Oprah Winfrey’s claim that there are millions of ways to God. The idea of one way to salvation is considered an arrogant holdover from colonialism. Somehow, Christians, Muslims, and other traditional religionists have failed to grasp the “reasonable” Enlightenment message of a generic natural religion (Deism) that strips away special revelation or savingly unique perspective.

I’m presently reading a fine biography of Thomas Jefferson—Sworn on the Altar of God by Edwin Gaustad—in preparation for visiting Monticello on our family vacation; Jefferson, following David Hume, maintained that experience, not authority, must be our guide regarding religion, and, since our experience witnesses nature as uniform and unchanging, miracles cannot take place. Deism bears some resemblance to the pluralism of John Hick and others pluralists—embracing a more generic deity, rejecting religious particularism/exclusivism, explaining away miracles that support a religion’s uniqueness, and so forth. In the discussion below, I’ll raise some questions regarding religious pluralism in favor of Christ’s uniqueness.

First, religious pluralism eliminates the possibility of specific, historical divine revelation. Religious pluralism seeks to begin from the ground up by observing what goes on in mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, and Sikh gurdwaras. Many pluralists like John Hick believe Jesus was just a God-conscious person who did not rise from the dead. His later followers ascribed divinity to him in much the same way that some of Buddha’s followers did to Buddha. The pluralist, if correct, ultimately undermines the historic Christian faith. Jesus is not allowed to be the Savior of the world; rather, the Christian faith is one of many legitimate ways of finding salvation or liberation.

According to orthodox Christianity, God begins with particular persons and events—Abraham or the Incarnation. He does have the universal in mind, seeking to bless all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:1–3). Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, the Christian mission to the world flows from the Incarnation; the gospel offers salvation to all through God’s enabling Spirit. Pluralism, however, leaves us with a property-less, content-less Ultimate Reality. How then do we need to respond to It? Do we need to love It, or pray to It, or just live ethically? Can we know It even exists?

Second, religious pluralism is logically just as exclusivistic as the Christian — or any other faith. The pluralistic-sounding Dalai Lama actually turns out to be quite the exclusivist. He has declared that Tibetan Buddhism is “the highest and complete form of Buddhism”: “Only Buddhists can accomplish” what is necessary for liberation. Likewise, religious pluralism is just as “biased” and “exclusivistic” regarding the status of religious truth-claims. The religious pluralist believes that his view is true and that the exclusivist — whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist — is wrong in rejecting pluralism. The pluralist believes he has a virtue the Christian or Muslim does not. Pluralism implies that Christians need to abandon belief in Jesus’ deity, atoning death, and resurrection — beliefs that pluralists take to be literally false and simply inspiring metaphors or symbols. Though the Christian faith is a particular exclusivism, religious pluralism is a generic exclusivism: if the pluralist is correct, then the central doctrines of the world’s great religions are false.

While pluralists may appeal to analogies such as roads that lead to the tops of mountains or blind men touching an elephant, we could ask how they know that each religion’s road leads to the top and why those who disagree are wrong. How is it that they have the correct vantage point? Besides, these analogies do not prove a point; they only illustrate it. If Jesus is the only way, we could then change the analogy to one that appropriately supports this point. For example, religions are like a labyrinth or a maze with only one way out. Here Jesus proves to be an advantageous starting point. Jesus claims to reveal God to us and to direct our destiny, which is bound up with our response to Him personally. Indeed, Jesus himself steps into the maze of our miserable human condition and guides us to salvation and grants us hope.

Third, despite its claims, religious pluralism is geographically-limited—which is the very charge made by pluralists against religions like Christianity (“If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be a Muslim”—a view known as the “geography objection”). But even if religious belief is largely shaped by geographical and historical circumstances (statistically speaking), this fact in itself does not guarantee religious pluralism’s truth; this hardly proves the pluralist’s point.

The geography of a belief neither establishes nor neutralizes its truth. While a Marxist, a monarchist, or a conservative Republican would likely have joined the Hitler Youth had he grown up in Nazi Germany, we do not conclude that all political systems are equally legitimate. Independent reasons exist for preferring certain forms of government over others. We could say the same about morality: just because some groups of people grow up holding that cannibalism or terrorism or racism are morally permissible or justifiable, we are right to stick to our guns by rejecting their problematic moral perspective. Our belief in objective moral values and human rights isn’t threatened by the fact that others grow up thinking differently.

The same applies to beliefs about ultimate reality and the human condition: We rightly reject profoundly-incoherent beliefs. We correctly question claims that depend heavily on phony documents or the character of a charismatic, womanizing charlatan who founds a religion — even if his followers are morally decent people. If the Christian faith more readily explains many features of the universe and of the human condition than various Eastern religions (many of which are non-theistic) or secular worldview alternatives, then its greater plausibility should not be trumped by the geographic objection.

Hardly neutral observers of the religious landscape, pluralists who reject Jesus’ bodily resurrection or his remarkable authority claims as historically reliable are taking a gamble. Not only would Jesus’ radical uniqueness completely undermine pluralism, but orthodox Christian tradition is also buttressed by strong historical support. Indeed, the Christian faith is virtually unique among the world religions in that it is rooted in history and thus makes crucial claims are historically verifiable (e.g., Jesus’ death and resurrection).

In addition, we can turn the tables on the pluralist: If he had been born in Madagascar or medieval France, he probably would not have become a pluralist! If all religions are culturally conditioned attempts to get at the Ultimate Reality, then pluralism is just as culturally conditioned as Christians or Hindus are in their beliefs.

How then has the pluralist risen above his cultural conditioning to see things more clearly than the rest of us? Does the religious pluralist think he is just another blind man touching his part of the elephant? No. He takes the view of the onlooker who sees the entire elephant and thinks the blind men are foolish because of their narrow-minded dogmatism. There is nothing wrong with seeing the big picture. (If God has stepped into history and revealed himself savingly in Christ, Christians can justifiably present the big picture.) However, this “colonialist” and “arrogant” perspective is the very one the pluralist was opposing.

Fourth, a religion’s moral fruitfulness is not necessarily the ultimate test of its legitimacy. How do we explain moral atheists who help their neighbors but reject the transcendent and even strongly oppose traditional religion as delusional and full of false promises? What about religions that include ritual human sacrifice or racist beliefs? Are these legitimate, culturally conditioned attempts to arrive at Ultimate Reality? Ironically, pluralists like John Hick and Paul Knitter affirm an impersonal Ultimate Reality (which is also affirmed in many Eastern religions), but how can It be the basis of personal virtues such as kindness and compassion? A personal God—especially the intrinsically-relational triune God—makes better sense of such virtues.

If no observable moral difference exists between adherents of these different religions, then the common pluralistic conclusion — that all the great religions are equally capable of saving — isn’t more obvious than the conclusion that it is *not* the case that all these religions are equally capable of saving. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that we have no idea whether all religions are or are not equally capable of saving. Being an agnostic, not a pluralist, is the more reasonable position.

Fifth, the Christian’s motivation to live humbly, gratefully, graciously, and self-sacrificially is connected to Jesus’ authority as God’s Son. According to the New Testament, Jesus does not have authority just because we find ourselves agreeing with his moral teaching. Rather, it is Jesus’ unique status as God’s Son that serves as the source and locus of his authority—regardless of whether we happen to agree with his teaching! (Thus we should reject the bumper sticker theology that affirms, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” No, God/Jesus said it. That settles it whether I believe it or not!). If Jesus is not the unique Son of God but a mere man, then the Christian’s motivation will lose much of its force. If Jesus is not God incarnate, this undercuts historic Christianity’s claims and seriously undermines our devotion to Christ. This is a pragmatic consideration, yes, but the Christian faith is bound up with historical events such as Jesus’ death and resurrection. If these never occurred, then Paul urges us to consider hedonism since a merely earthly hope in Christ is delusional (1 Corinthians 15:32).

Sixth, if Jesus is God’s Son, this effectively undermines religious pluralism. Despite the points listed above, pluralism could logically still be true. However, if Jesus is God incarnate, then pluralism is false. Jesus was not just another great religious teacher. Consider the following subpoints:

(a) Jesus was different from the founders of other great religions. Jesus made unique claims that no other world religious leader made — to forgive sins, hear prayers, be the Judge of all, be always present with His followers, give rest to one’s soul, have authority over angelic/demonic beings, and receive worship. By contrast, Muhammad would have thought Jesus’ personal claims blasphemous; Buddha was a metaphysical agnostic as was Confucius.

(b) The earliest Christians — fiercely monotheistic Jews — bore witness to an exalted Jesus who shared in the divine identity. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares that there is one Lord [Yahweh], but Paul affirmed that the one Lord is Jesus Christ who is Creator of all and the Source of our existence (1 Corinthians 8:6). The first Christians even prayed to Him (Acts 7:59; 1 Corinthians 16:22). One pluralist, Paul Knitter, claims that Jesus’ first followers were speaking *confessionally*, not *ontologically*. That is, they weren’t trying to make absolute statements about reality, but were so in love with Jesus that they used superlatives—like husbands and wives do of each other (“Honey, you’re the greatest!”). However, what we read in the New Testament is serious business; Knitter doesn’t take into account the anti-idolatrous mindset of first-century Judaism: the first followers are calling Jesus creator, praying to him, receiving forgiveness from him. This is more than just language about being in love with Jesus. This is blasphemy if they’re wrong!

Jesus’ first followers believed He shared the divine identity and attributed the honors, titles, actions, and prerogatives of Yahweh to Jesus. The New Testament writers affirmed this without dispute. Such a conviction, buttressed by Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead and post-mortem appearances, vindicated those authoritative claims — that in Him the kingdom of God, the new exodus, and the new creation had come. If there is salvation outside of Christ, then Jesus’ redemptive mission as Israel’s and humanity’s representative was ultimately a misguided failure. And contrary to Jesus’ Gethsemane impressions, the bitter cup could have been removed from Him.

(c) Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his claims. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul was willing to stake the Christian faith entirely on this event: If Christ hasn’t been raised, our faith is futile…we ought to be pitied above all men.

In the end, religious pluralism will not let Jesus be Jesus. If it did, it would undermine itself.

Send post as PDF to

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