Christology: A Global Introduction, A Review (PART II)

Part I is here. Here is the rest.

Part two is a meditation upon the various Christological heresies within the early church traditions. Building off the New Testament, Kärkkäinen explains the various questions these holy writings produce, and the results are fascinating. Kärkkäinen covers Docetism, Apollinarianism, Arianism and Nestorianism, and their advocates and detractors. The difficult questions that were produced by these theological constructs are not hidden by Kärkkäinen, but are rather offered as a means to illustrate the difficulties surrounding the human one from Nazareth.

The one issue a reader might have is that main patristic sources such as Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus are not fully explained, thus leaving students a bit confused as to how the Church got from point A to C.

The councils Chalcedon and Nicaea are attempts to solve these perennial problems, but do so in a limited fashion. For instance, types of subordination are not immediately ruled out (contemporarily called ‘functional subordinationism’ with advocates such as Ware and Grudem), and this is an area where Christians continue to disagree. Kärkkäinen helpfully distinguishes between the Eastern and Western emphases concerning ‘natures’ (69-71), and showcases the tragic gap that developed between both East and West over these enduring issues of Christology and dogma. Built off these developments, the Reformation is front and center in engaging with kenosis Christology and Luther’s theology of the Cross, paving the way for modern theology (Moltmann).

Kärkkäinen then takes us on a whirlwind tour of the quests for the historical Jesus and the trappings of liberal Christianity, and he opines “one hopes that those involved will begin to dialogue more widely with systematic theology” (108). While the section on biblical studies was largely helpful, this part of the book is particularly edifying in illuminating the veiled aspects of church history.

NQ

Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Some Reflections

I hated history in high school and during undergrad. Mostly, it was listless and detached from my own reality. Of course, now that I've stepped out from that mindset, the ancient past has come to life in some curious ways. Reading literature about the New Testament, including the social and political world has added multiples layers to my understand. One of the chief texts is Lynn Cohick's Women in the World of the Earliest Christians.

So far, there are four main facts I've learned in the first three chapters. One, the lack of female representation in marriage documents is astounding. Simply, women, with few exceptions, weren't allowed to represent themselves. They had to have a male (relative or not) stand in for them. Two, divorce was common but didn't carry any particular shame as regards to the woman. In fact, many women could get their dowry back without much fuss.

Three, barrenness didn't necessarily result in shame. So while a Greco-Roman woman could be divorced (or request or suggest one) if she couldn't have children, most often the husband didn't make a big deal out of it. Fourth and finally, most women married roughly around age 15 and didn't usually get to see their children reach adulthood.

So I highly recommend this text. Cohick deals with papyrus, ancient rhetoric (some of it so sexist it will make your toes curl) and seeks to provide nuance and clarity to the modern stereotypes of ancient women. Well worth your time.

Plus, if that isn't enough, I bought this book for my wife and haven't let her read it yet! Of course if she asked, I would mutually allow it.

--Nick

Andrew Jukes, Universalism & The Critique of Annihilationism

This is taken from Andrew Jukes' essay, "The Restitution of All Things." I post this here not because I agree with it (I find a lot of his answers quite unsatisfying) but because it presents a case from a universalist perspective against annihilationism. Its a very rare thing.

The truth is, death for man is simply an end to, and separation from, some given form of life which he has lived in. Death to God is separation from His world of light, by the destruction, through the lie of the serpent, of the divine life of light and love in us. Death to sin, the exact converse of this, is the separation from the world of darkness, by the destruction, through the truth, of the dark life of unbelief and self-love. The death wrought by the law is the end of, and separation from, our fallen carnal life of self-sufficiency; while what is commonly called death, namely the death of the body, is simply our separation from the outward world, in which we live, as partakers of its outward life, while we are in the body. Once let us see that there are three worlds, each having its own life,—a light world, a dark world, and this outward seen world,—and then what is said in Scripture of the new birth, or of the varied deaths we pass through, becomes at once self-evident. For the only way into any world is by a birth into it, even as the only way out of any world is by a death to it. We have by sin died to God's light-world, to fall into and live in a spirit-world of darkness. We must by the truth, that is by Christ, die to this dark spirit-world, to return to live in God's light-world. The outward birth and death of the body, and its life, have only to do with the outward seen world.

For this reason it is that the word "destruction," as used in Scripture, never means annihilation. Take for instance the words of the 90th Psalm, "Thou turnest man to destruction: again Thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men." Can "destruction" here be annihilation? Is it not rather that dissolution which must take place if fallen creatures are ever to be brought back perfectly to God's kingdom. So, again, Job says, (Job 19:10,) "He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone"; and again, (Job 9:22,) "This one thing I said, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." But does he mean to say that he is brought to non-existence, or that the "perfect" will be so destroyed that they will exist no longer? So, again, St. Peter says, (2 Pet. 3:6,) "The world that then was perished." So, again, of the present heavens and earth it is said, (Heb. 1:11-12,) "They shall perish, . . . and be changed." So, again, both of Israel and Jerusalem it is said, (Deut. 30:18; Jer. 12:17; 15:6;) that they shall be "destroyed" and "perish." But does any one suppose that therefore they will be annihilated? So, again, as to the expression, "them that perish," sometimes translated "the lost"; (see 2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15;) do we not know that these "lost," though they "perish," still exist, and exist both as "lost" ones and as "saved" ones, as text on text will testify abundantly. So as to the righteous, in the well-known passage of Isaiah; (Isa. 57:1;) "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart";—is this "perishing" non-existence? So, again, where we read, in Psalm 83:16-18, "Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O Lord: let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame and perish; that men" (literally "they," for the word "men" is not in the Original,) "may know that Thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth;"—men are to be "confounded for ever and perish, that they may know Jehovah." So as to the question, "Wilt Thou shew wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise Thee? Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in destruction?"—is the true answer, Yes, or No? Is not the "losing" or "destruction" of our fallen life the only way to a better one? Does not our Lord Himself say more than once, (Matt. 10:39; 16:25; John 12:25;) that the way to "save our life," or "soul," is to "lose it," or "have it destroyed," in its fallen form, that it may be re-created?

These last words should of themselves settle this question, for in one place, (Matt. 10:39,) they occur in immediate connexion (see Matt. 10:28,) with those other well-known words, as to "fearing him who can destroy both body and soul in hell," which are constantly quoted by some to prove, as they think, that "destruction" must be non-existence. And yet, in the very closest connexion with these words, our Lord repeats this self-same word, "destroy," (in our Authorized Version translated "lose"—it is the word ἀπόλλυμι, on which some build so much,) to express that death and dissolution of the soul, which, so far from bringing it to non-existence, is the appointed way to save it. Christ saves it, as we have seen, by death; for being fallen into sin, what is needed is "that the body of sin should be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:6.) The elect, that is the first-fruits, are the living proof of this. A "new man" is created in them, and the "old man" dies and is destroyed, while yet he in whom all this is done remains through all the same person. It may be, and is, a riddle, like "dying, and behold we live: having nothing, and yet possessing all things"; yet it is only the riddle of the Cross, that "by death God destroys him that has the power of death." Therefore, though destruction, like death, may be, and is, a ceasing from some particular form of life which has been lived in by man, yet it is never non-existence absolutely; rather it is the means to bring the fallen creature into a new life, a chaos being ever the necessary condition for a new creation.

--Nick

Origen of Alexandria on the Purification of Man

On First Principles, Chap. X, Sec. 6. Page 146-47.

6. There are many other matters too, which are hidden from us, and are known only to him who is the physician of our souls. For if in regard to bodily health we occasionally find it necessary to take some very unpleasant and bitter medicine as a cure for the ills we have brought on through eating and drinking, and sometimes, if the character of the ill demands it, we need the severe treatment of the knife and a painful operation, yes, and should the disease have extended beyond the reach even of these remedies, in the last resort the lilies burnt out by fire, how much more should we realize that God our physician, in his desire to wash away the ills of our souls, which they have brought on themselves through a variety of sins and chimes, makes us of penal remedies of a similar sort, even to the infliction of a punishment of fire on those who have lost their soul's health.

Allusions to this are found also in the holy scriptures. For instance, in Deuteronomy the divine word threatens that sinners are to be punished with 'fevers and cold and pallor', and tortured with 'feebleness of eyes and insanity and paralysis and blindness and weakness of the reigns' (Deut. 28:22, 28-29). And so if anyone will gather at his leisure from the whole of scripture all the references to sufferings which in threats against sinners are called by the names of bodily sicknesses, he will find that through them allusion is being made to either the ills of the punishments of souls. And to help us understand that as physicians supply aids to sufferers with the object of restoring them to health through careful treatment, so with the same motive God acts towards those who have lapsed and fallen into sin, there is proof in that passage in which, through the prophet Jeremiah, God's 'cup of fury' is commanded 'to be set before all nations' that 'they may drink it and become mad and spew it out' (Jerem. 25:15,16,27). In this passage there is a threat which says, 'if anyone refuses to drink, he shall not be cleansed' (Jerem. 25:28,29); from which certainly we understand that the fury of God's vengeance ministers to the purification of souls.

Isaiah teaches that even the punishments which are said to be inflicted by fire are meant to be applied as a help, when he speaks thus about Israel: 'The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Sion, and will purge away the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of burning' (Is. 4:4). And of the Chaldaeans he speaks thus: ' Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; they shall be to thee for a help' (Is. 47:14,15: LXX), and in other places he says: "The Lord shall sanctify them in burning fire' (Is. 66:16,17), and in the prophet Malachi it speaks as follows: 'The Lord shall sift and refine his people as gold and silver; he shall refine and purify and pour forth purified the sons of Judah' (Mal. 3:3).

--Nick

Early Pauline Canons: Unity and Diversity

Marcion's canon list omits 1-2 Timothy and Titus, as well as Ephesians. Marcion is a well-known second century theologian/heretic. Here he includes the letter to the Laodiceans, which only survives in Latin and various translations from that. It was condemned in Nicea II circa 787CE. It is likely referenced in Colossians 4:16.

List --

Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Laodiceans
Colossians
Philippians
Philemon

P46 was written roughly 200-225CE. None of the Pauline epistles are complete, but it lacks 2 Thessalonians and Philemon, and adds Hebrews. Scholars think the papyrus included the texts but they fell off.

List --

Romans
Hebrews
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Ephesians
Galatians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians

Muratori is of contested date of origin. It is a fragmentary Latin document translated (according to Pervo and others as 'incompetently' translated) supposedly around 200CE. Many scholars dispute this date. The canon rejected the letter to the Laodiceans as well as other texts.

List --

1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Galatians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Romans
Titus
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Philemon

Claromontanus' catalog is found in a sixth-century MS (D 06). The list doesn't include 1-2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy and Philippians. The canon closes, after Jude, with Barnabas, Revelation, Acts, Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter.

List --

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
1 Timothy
Titus
Colossians
Philemon

Gelasianum came to fruition in southern France (Gaul) during the sixth century. It includes the entirety of Paul's writings.

List --

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Ephesians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Galatians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

Ambrosiaster is the name coined by Jerome, used within the latter part of the fourth century. Pelagius' commentary follows this list. The order of Ephesians and Philippians vary in many MS. The addition of Hebrews as Pauline corresponds to Origen's comment about Paul being the author, or as the goofballs say, "God only knows who wrote Hebrews, so it might as well have been Paul."

List --

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Titus
Colossians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Philemon
Hebrews

Victorinus of Petau was an early Latin exegete who operated in what we now call Bosnia. The canon list is full.

List --

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Ephesians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Galatians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

Augustine of Hippo worked from North Africa, circa 354-430. Arguably one of the most influential theologians of his -- our -- time. His canon includes every Pauline letter.

List --

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Colossians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

The source of the Syriac catalog are the Catalogus Sinaiticus and Ephrem, who worked in 306-373CE. The list omits 1 Timothy, either due to oversight or by intent.

List --

Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Hebrews
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

As we've seen, there are consistent Pauline epistles which appear in each canon. These include Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians.

There are also variant Pauline epistles that don't appear in every canon list. These include 1-2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians.

The addition of Non-Pauline epistles include Laodiceans and Hebrews.

--Nick

Data taken from Richard I. Pervo, The Making of Paul, especially page 29.

Paul's Theological Vision According to Murphy-O'Connor

In between doing wedding preparations and being a generally good husband to be, I found the time to clip and paste this piece by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor from his book "Paul: His Story." Enjoy.

The stature of Paul was further enhanced by his endorsement by the first great Christian theologian of the post-apostolic age. Irenaeus (c.130-200) was the earliest and strongest bridge between east and west. Born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he sat at the feet of Polycarp, he studied in Rome, and ended his career as bishop of Lyons in France. In his great work, Against All Heresies, he argues both against those, such as Marcion, who claimed too much for Paul, alleging that 'Paul alone knew the truth' (3. 13. 1.), and against those 'who do not recognize Paul as an apostle' (3. 15. 1.). The respect that Irenaeus accorded to, and demanded for, Paul is formally articulated in the foundational principle of his work.

The test of doctrinal truth for all churches was their agreement with 'that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul' (3. 3. 2.). It is not surprising, in consequence, that Irenaeus cites or alludes to Paul over 400 times, and evokes every letter with the exception of Philemon. What Irenaeus did not do, however, was to take over Paul's theological vision. In the last analysis the letters were merely exploited as a quarry of proof-texts. This was to be Paul's fate throughout all subsequent centuries. An extremely selective approach has been characteristic of the use of his letters in all the great theological debates. If Augustine exaggerated an aspect of Paul's description of unredeemed humanity, the Reformers tore out of its love-filled social context his stress on the importance of faith.

Paul's analysis of the world in which he had to operate is still verified in our contemporary society. Such accuracy and insights should give us confidence in the solutions that he proposed in order to make Christianity an authentic instrument of change. It is not that the Pauline version of Christianity has failed, it has never been seriously tried.

--Nick

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: His Story pgs238-9.

The Legacy of F.F. Bruce

Furthermore, in his methodology, he practiced a high degree of objectivity at a period when this was still sought and prized as the scholarly ideal. That objectivity was rooted in his conviction that all truth was God's truth, which made him open to receive truth from wherever it came. He did not fit the caricature of the ignorant and narrow-minded fundamentalist which most people expected a member of the Brethren to be, but learned from and related to scholars of all persuasions. As he put it, 'I have sometimes learned most from scholars with whom I have agreed least: they compel one to think, and rethink'(1). He was the least defensive person imaginable, secure in his own faith, never attributing unworthy motives to those with whom he disagreed, and won respect from many for his willingness to argue on the basis of the evidence rather than adopting a party line(2).

In conclusion, we could view Bruce as a 'believing critic', and his sympathy for William Robertson Smith tends to confirm this(3). Perhaps too he was a popularizer of scholarly work, in the best sense of the word. but I would suggest that the most important way to regard him is as a teacher who sought to use his gifts to build up the church and to offer a credible account of the sources on which the Christian faith is founded; David Hubbard, who was president of Fuller Seminary, testified to how Bruce's 'blend of learnedness, clarity, diligence, even-handedness, and devotion to the gospel' had influenced him during the 1960s(4). And Bruce taught not only by his words and writings, but by his life. For that life, many continue to give thanks.

F.F. Bruce, a Life by Tim Grass, pgs226-7.

A life I wish I had known, but I believe that his example offers much to me personally. Hopefully I can be as such as he was.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. The Epistle to the Colossians, To Philemon and to the Ephesians, pg. xii.

2. IR, pg172-3. Various personal confirmations as well.

3. e.g. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.

4. David A. Hubbard, 'Evangelicals and Biblical Scholarship, 1945-1992: An Anecdotal Commentary', Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993): PP. 1-16

John Locke's Egalitarianism

John Locke, whilst engaged in writing his notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, was at a meeting where two women preached. After hearing them, he became convinced of their commission to publish the gospel, and thereupon altered his notes on the 11th Ch. I Cor. in favor of women's preaching.

He says,

This about women seeming as difficult a passage as most in St. Paul's Epistles, I crave leave to premise some few considerations. It is plain that this covering the head in women is restrained to some peculiar actions which they performed in the assembly, expressed by the words praying, prophesying, which, whatever they signify, must have the same meaning applied to women in the 5th verse, that they have when applied to men in the 4th, &c. The next thing to be considered is, what is here to be understood by praying and prophesying. And that seems to me the performing of some public actions in the assembly, by some one person which was for that time peculiar to that person, and whilst it lasted, the rest of the assembly silently assisted. As to prophesying, the apostle in express words tells us, Ch. 14:3, 12 that it was speaking in the assembly. The same is evident as to praying, that the apostle means by it publicly with an audible voice, ch. 14:19.

In a letter to these two women, Rebecca Collier and Rachel Bracken, which accompanied a little testimony in his regard, he says,

I admire no converse like that of Christian freedom; and I fear no bondage like that of pride and prejudice. I now see that acquaintance by sight cannot reach the height of enjoyment, which acquaintance by knowledge arrives unto. Outward hearing may misguide us, but internal knowledge cannot err. . .Women, indeed, had the honor of first publishing the resurrection of the God of love--why not again the resurrection of the spirit of love? And let all the disciples of Christ rejoice therein, as doth your partner, John Locke.

Powerful.

--Nick

See Elizabeth Ann Bartlett, "Sarah Grimke: Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and Other Essays" 91-92.

Gender and the Modern Church

 I found this post by Dr. Craig Keener, and while I don't agree with everything, I found a lot of value in his writing.

Keener:

Sometimes more traditional interpreters have accused those of us who follow this approach of dishonoring the Bible. This accusation, however, misrepresents the debate's real crux: how one should apply the Bible. After all, the prophets, Jesus and Paul all reapplied some earlier biblical principles in new circumstances; addressing a new situation, Paul, for example, adds an explicit exception to Jesus's teaching about divorce. It is therefore biblical as well as pastorally sensitive to consider how we apply texts.

Moreover, the issue involves how we can apply the Bible consistently. Most of those who oppose women's ordination do not follow biblical instructions to greet one another with holy kisses or wear head coverings in church. Most recognize that these were cultural expressions of principles (such as friendly greetings) that may be applied differently in different cultures. Certainly most churches do not take up offerings for the Jerusalem church every Sunday (1 Corinthains 16:1-3) and most Bible readers do not feel compelled to go to Troas, get Paul's cloak and try to take it to him (2 Timothy 4:13). When they neglect these instructions, they do not see themselves as disobeying the Bible. They simply recognize that we need to take into account the situations the biblical writers addressed, before extracting larger principles. That is not only how we read the Bible but how we learn from any wisdom originally written in the past. Nearly all communication uses a language and some cultural setting!

For the original, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Junia the Apostle According to the Philosopher John Locke

"Only since the Middle Ages, and primarily because of Luther's translation, has the view prevailed that Junia was not a woman but a man by the name of Junias23. To cite a final, somewhat random example, the English philosopher John Locke (1623-1704), whose A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of Paul24 was published posthumously in 1705-07, affords an opportunity to see how the Junia/Junias matter was addressed by a prominent intellectual in the first few years of the eighteenth century (when the Paraphrase was written).

Locke, in composing the work, had consulted Isaac Newton and Jean Le Clerc and had studied the works of John Lightfoot, Theodore Beza, and Richard Simon, among many others25. Locke's text of Romans 16:7 read as follows: "Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostle, who also were in Christ before me," while his "paraphrase" -- hardly worth the name at this point -- contained only two minor changes from his text and, of course, retains "Junia" (and, by the way, "Julia" in Romans 16:1526)."

Eldon Jay Epp: "Junia The First Woman Apostle" pg38.

End Notes:

23. Luise Schottroff, Let the Oppressed go Free: Feminine Perspectives on the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 36. Belleville, "A Reexamination of Romans 16:7," 237 n.24, reminds us that Luther used Erasmus's second edition of the Greek New Testament for his German translation, which reads Junia, "so the source of the masculine Junias may well reflect Luther's personal disposition against an apostolic attribution." On Luther's use of Erasmus, see Greenslade, The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, 3:99.

24. John Locke, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul to The Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, ed. Arthur W. Wainwright 92 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).

25. Ibid., 1:11-17.

26. Ibid., 2:601-3 There were no comments on these passages in his "Manuscript Notes," 733, "Textual Notes," 761, or "Explanatory Notes," 801-2.

John Chrysostom on Woman

John Chrysostom (347-407) on the subject, singling out Junia.

How is this? A woman is honoured and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honour conferred upon us. For an honour we have, in that there are such women amongst us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind them. But if we come to know whence it comes, that they are so adorned, we too shall speedily overtake them.

For the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labours for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they went traveling with them, and also performed all other ministries.

And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should even be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop…For after glory such as his in kind and degree, he sets others before himself, and does not hide from us the fact of his coming after them, nor ashamed of confessing this.

--Nick

Origen on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture

 This is according to the Greek translation of Origen.

"And now we must add that it was after the advent of Jesus that the inspiration of the prophetic words and the spiritual nature of Moses' law came to light. For before the advent of Christ it was not at all possible to bring forward clear proofs of the divine inspiration of Scripture. But the advent of Jesus led those who might have suspected that the law and the prophets were not divine to the clear conviction that they were composed by the aide of heavenly grace.

{paragraph break in Greek}

And he who approaches the prophetic words with care and attention will feel from his very reading a trace of their divine inspiration and will be convinced by his own feelings that the words which are believed by us to be from God are not the compositions of men" (1).

Apparently, these problems were going on back then, particularly with the rise of Marcionism. Origen appears to be arguing for what we would call a Christocentric hermeneutic. Christian Smith defines this principle as following: "the purpose, center, and interpretive key to Scripture is Jesus Christ" (2). Simply put, the only thing by which Scripture makes sense is Jesus.

Thoughts?

--Nick

1. Origen, "On First Principles" pgs264-5.

2. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pg97.

Evangelicalism, The Center and Boundaries

http://lostinthecloud.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/in-loving-memory-evangelicalism.jpg

Is the Evangelical Quadrilateral good enough?

Do Brian McLaren and Mark Driscoll both have a legitimate claim to be an "evangelical?" Of course, I would make the distinction that an evangelical can be either liberal, moderate or conservative but that is neither here nor there.

I think Roger Olson's post moves us towards a possible consensus. Roger Olson stated, "It has always seemed self-evident to me that movements cannot have boundaries. In fact, secretly, only to myself, I have long considered people who think movements can have boundaries either disingenuous or sociologically ignorant. Organizations have boundaries; movements do not. It’s self-evident. Movements have centers, not boundaries" (1).

If one looks at fundamentalism within the 1920s to the 50s, you get a clear look into the heart of remnant theology rooted in dispensationalism, coupled with the fear of the Soviet empire in the 60s and so on. Today, you have many folks within Protestantism who would prefer a smaller venue with less distinctions in term of doctrinal strife.

Or, in other words, doctrine trumps fellowship.

So, it makes sense that many conservative Christians put inerrancy up as the deciding vote on whether or not one is an evangelical. Besides the difficulty in defining inerrancy to most people's satisfaction, one is really out in a leaky lifeboat if they think the resurrection is as important as the complete historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture.

Biblicism. Conversionism. Crucicentrism. Activism. Bebbington put these out there to attempt a calm in a sea of bewildering chaos. Beyond being disputed by DA Carson among others, people make a point that doctrine is the method by which we measure one's orthodoxy, not character or sociology.

I think we've got multiple deep-rooted problems here, not the least of which is that the people who want to define the legitimacy of certain trump card doctrines all more or less believe the same thing. Therefore, evangelicalism is an exclusive or even ecclesiocentric patchwork quilt, not a big billowing tent.

 Another issue comes about when you have people who seem to fall outside the realm of "evangelical" but still desire the label. Do we honor the request for the title, redefine the title or entirely exclude the inquirer? I confess, I don't know.

Olson, "Thus, I argue that evangelicalism, like Pietism, charismatic movement, “New Age,” etc., etc. refers to a category that can only be defined in terms of prototypes that constitute a center. I would put Noll’s and Bebbington’s four hallmarks at that center and with them Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. What did those men have in common that was not as noticeable among most of their peers in Protestant Christianity? I would say those would be biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism. And I would add to that a tendency strongly to defend the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy (broadly defined). Yes, to be sure, there were others who displayed the same characteristics, but they especially stand out as the prototypes of the Great Awakenings of the eighteenth century that gave birth to the modern evangelical movement" (1).

I will confess that I think evangelicalism is a big tent constituency, and I think one can very easily be an evangelical if they hold to the general terms outlined above.  The issues these days is more or less a redefinition of the terms.

The question is, do we allow it or fight it? I have no idea.

--Nick

An Evangelical Quadrilateral, or musings with Brandan Robertson

I have never met Brandan except via scattered facebook and blog comments, but I get the impression that we'd be jovial friends with the occasional friendly jab. He wrote a post about the spectrum of Protestantism and it attracted some pretty hefty flack, including a response by Dan Kimball.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read the comments on the blog or check out any additional response Brandan may have offered. So I'm shooting from the hip on this one.

Here is the picture that started it all (in a good way):

I confess, I find this compelling for the most part. I think I agree with the majority of placements on here (saving Tim Keller in the Neo-Evangelical category) so for the sake of argument I won't push much on this.

But here is my big question(s):

What determines the label "fundamentalist?" Or "Reformed Evangelical?" Why distinguish between Reformed Evangelical and Free Will Evangelical?

Is it a belief in Dispensationalism? Exclusive male hierarchy? Elder only board? Inerrancy?

 In many ways, I feel this graph is part two of a series, and we've somehow skipped part one. The labels themselves need to be defined more specifically. I know DA Carson got after Bebbington and Noll for defining evangelicalism sociologically, but I think there should be more put into this. The subjective nature of labels does blur the lines of an already postmodern society.

So how should Brandan, myself and others defines these terms? The terms change with each generation and what was progressive back in the day (an example is Paul K. Jewett's advocating the ordination of women in the 70s while at Fuller, causing a big stir. Or Edward John Carnell being "soft" of Barth when they met for a session discussing inerrancy). Karl Barth wasn't a fan of liberal theology the way he knew it, yet today he's considered a liberal by many (not necessarily by me, as I'm only 6 pages into his Church Dogmatics).

Please don't misunderstand, I do not consider a definition of labels to be necessarily an exclusion of an individual or group. Rather, I would prefer to see an objective (within reason) form of looking at the way people labels themselves but also the way we label them. This should include some method of evaluating the belief systems and where the chips fall.

So, in essence, this chart is an excellent one, but I believe it is incomplete and a lot of people may be left scratching their heads. I know I was when I saw Tim Killer in the neo-evangelical category. However, I look forward to dialoguing with Brandan about this, as I too am fascinated with labels, being one who rejected labels for some time. Especially when I was just beginning my journey. Brandan is a forward-thinking soul and I am glad to be a part of this discussion.

For the record, I consider myself, according to the chart to be Neo-Orthodox. :)

Here is Brandan's original post.

God bless.

--Nick

Origen on "The Last Enemy, that is Death"

It is on this account, moreover, that the last enemy, who is called death, is said to be destroyed: in order, namely, that there may be no longer any sadness when there is no death nor diversity when there is no enemy. For the destruction of the last enemy must be understood in this way, not that its substance which was made by God shall perish, but that the hostile purpose and will which proceeded not from God but from itself will come to an end. It will be destroyed, therefore, not in the sense of ceasing to exist, but of being no longer an enemy and no longer death. For to the Almighty nothing is impossible6, nor is anything beyond the reach of cure by its Maker; for it was on this account that he made all things, that they might exist, and those things which were made in order to exist cannot cease to exist.

Origen, On First Principles, being Koetschau's Text of the De Principiis Translated into English. Chapter 6, Pgs250-51

Arminius on Election

Arminius:

In the second place, you assert, that “divine Election is rule of giving or withholding faith. Therefore Election does not pertain to believers, but faith rather pertains to the elect, or is from the gift of Election.” You will allow me to deny this, and to ask for the proof, while I plead the cause of those, whose sentiment you here oppose. Election is made in Christ. But no one is in Christ, except he is a believer. Therefore no one is elected in Christ, unless he is a believer. The passage in Romans xi, 5, does not serve to prove that thesis. For the point, there discussed, is not the election of grace, according to which faith is given to some, but that, according to which, righteousness is imputed to believers. This may be most easily, proved from the context, and will be manifest to any one, who will more diligently inspect and examine it. For the people, “which God foreknew, (verse 2d,) that is which He foreknew according to His grace, is the people, which believed, not that which followed after righteousness by the works of the law (Rom. ix, 31). This people God “hath not cast away.” For thus is to be understood the fifth verse, “there is a remnant according to the election of grace,” that is, they, only, are to be esteemed as the remnant of the people of God, who believe in Christ, as they alone are embraced in the election of grace, the children of the flesh, who followed after righteousness by the law, being excluded. That, which follows, teaches the same thing, “if by grace, then it is no more of works.” What is that which is “by grace “? Is it election to faith? By no means; but it is election to righteousness, or righteousness itself. For it is said to be “by grace” not “by works.” For it is not, here, inquired whether faith, but whether righteousness belongs to any one by works. Consider also the next verse “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded.” What is that which Israel had sought for, and had not obtained? Not faith, but righteousness. See the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th chapters. They rejected faith in Christ, and endeavoured to obtain righteousness, by the works of the law, and this is the reason that they did not attain “to the law of righteousness.” It is the same thing, also, which the elect are said to have obtained, not faith, but righteousness.

 Much thanks to Arminian Today for this. Much to ponder and chew on.

--Nick

Origen's Apokatastasis

"The restoration of all beings (apokatastasis) is the most important concept in Origen’s philosophy, and the touchstone by which he judges all other theories. His concept of universal restoration is based on equally strong Scriptural and Hellenistic philosophical grounds and is not original, as it can be traced back to Heraclitus, who stated that “the beginning and end are common” (Fragment B 103, tr. J. Barnes 1987, p. 115). Considering that Origen’s later opponents based their charges of heresy largely on this aspect of his teaching, it is surprising to see how well-grounded in scripture this doctrine really is. Origen’s main biblical proof-text is 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, especially verse 28, which speaks of the time “when all things shall be subdued unto him [Christ], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (KJV, my emphasis). This scriptural notion of God being “all in all” (panta en pasin) is a strong theological support for his theory of apokatastasis. There are, of course, numerous other passages in scripture that contradict this notion, but we must remember that Origen’s strength resided in his philosophical ability to use reason and dialectic in support of humane doctrines, not in the ability to use scripture in support of dogmatical and anti-humanistic arguments. Origen imagined salvation not in terms of the saved rejoicing in heaven and the damned suffering in hell, but as a reunion of all souls with God."

Source.

--Nick

Origen, Homilies & Hermeneutics

"While he was not the first Christian to write commentaries on the books of the Bible, the scope of his achievements in this area was unmatched in the ancient Church. His are not the earliest Christian homilies preserved, but the size of the corpus of his homilies makes them the earliest that can be studied in breadth and depth. They reveal him as an accomplished preacher of the Bible and a concerned pastor of the Church. He seems, moreover, to have been the first Christian to conceptualize the hermeneutical process. He devotes a large portion of the fourth book of On First Principles to how the Bible should be interpreted. This issue is also raised in his homilies.5 His approach to the Bible prevailed in the Church among both his followers and his antagonists for centuries. Beryl Smalley has said, "To write a history of Origenist influence on the west would be tantamount to writing a history of western exegesis.6"

Origen, "Homilies on Genesis and Exodus." Page 2.

5. See, for examples, Ex. Hom. 5.1.
6. The Study of the Bible in the Middles Ages, 2nd ed. 1952 (reprint ed. Notre Dame, In., 1964), 14.

Fragments of Origen, Genesis and Adam

I loved this post. Enjoy.

RJS:

Origin thought deeply on the nature of scripture and the interpretation of scripture – his thoughts are worth considering. We often suppose that it is only in the modern, scientific age that the nature of scripture and the nature of the creation narratives have been questioned.  This is clearly not the case however.  Origen defended the inspiration of scripture and he thought the earth was young and used the age of the earth as a part of his argument in Against Celsus. Yet this still did not lead to a literal interpretation of the creation narratives. Consider this passage from On First Principles Book 4 as translated from the Greek.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365)

For the rest, enjoy it at Jesus Creed.

--Nick

Christian Smith, "The Narcissism of Small Differences"

Christian Smith:

There is something very strange about the Reformed Protestant world in which I grew up and which I have since left. By “Reformed Protestant world” here I mean circles of conservative Presbyterianism represented by institutions such as Westminster Theological Seminary, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the “neo-Reformed” movement, and so on.

I am sure that these dynamics apply in many non-Reformed and non-Presbyterian circles, but I limit what I say here to them, since I know them best.

Almost all of the people that I know in this world are really good folk. I owe a great deal to them. But for some odd reason, they do love to make huge controversies out of minor issues. The smallest points of doctrine become major subjects of storm and battle. Endless attention and energy gets spent on matters that, with a bit of distance, are clearly tempests in teapots.

Doctrinal controversy seems almost to function as a form of community entertainment, something to prevent things from getting too boring. So, various of them continually “bringing charges against” others of them in their congregations or presbyteries within the denominational “court systems,” which seems to be a never-ending source of interest.

I have always chalked up these pervasive making-mountains-out-of-molehills tendencies to a kind of subcultural trauma suffered during the early-twentieth-century modernist-fundamentalist battles, in which the conservative Presbyterians were trounced in the 1920s—and in particular to losing Princeton Theological Seminary to the liberals (which gave rise to Westminster Seminary).
A kind of post-traumatic-stress syndrome beset the conservative Presbyterian subculture from that trauma, it seems to me, which gave rise to the kind of nervous “doctrinal legalism” that continues today. (Limiting “leadership” to [de facto] white males—the homogeneity of the composition of annual General Assembly photos published in denominational magazines is astounding!— cannot help either, seeing how that tends to skew discussion more toward “principles” than relationships, but that is another story.)

Recently, however, I came across a concept in psychology that I think sheds illuminating light on the tendencies described above: the narcissism of small differences. Now, I am no advocate of allowing psychology to colonize Christian truth—far too much of that has already happened in both mainline and evangelical Christianity. But the narcissism of small differences is too revealing to be ignored.

The term was coined by Sigmund Freud (which unfortunately means that those who most need to understand it will be the least willing to take it seriously). The basic idea is this: groups of people are often most sensitive and snotty toward those who they are most socially alike.  

Human groups do not have their fiercest conflicts with those who are quite different from them. Instead, they display the greatest pettiness and viciousness in fighting those who they look the most like.

For the rest, click HERE. 

--Nick